Source : Tyler Jwy Facebook account.

Tyler Jwy wrote on his Facebook account about a complaint filed towards Prudential as his father did not get the amount of money he was supposed to get when he signed up for the policy.
The post has been widely shared and commented upon by members of public and also agents from Prudential asking for more information about the matter.
Mr Ng wrote that his father bought a Prudential savings plan twenty years in 1997 and he was supposed to get $42,000 this year during March.
However, he noted that the company only sent his dad a cheque for $20,000, while the initial investment is $30,000*.
Mr Ng then wrote that his family then went to the Prudential office to lodge a complaint and to enquire as to why the company is not giving the full sum as promised on the contract.
He wrote that the company dismissed his dad with a convenient bullshit excuse, ” our company isn’t earning much so that’s the sum you’ll have “.
“Is this ethically right? What’s the point for anyone to save with prudential if you’re going to make a loss in the end after 20 years?” Mr Ng asked.
He then wrote that the money could’ve been many times more if his dad invested in other financial instruments and inflation.
“Is there any case if we were to sue them? My parents are just Hawkers, I don’t understand why you’ve to make the old generation suffer so much,” he wrote.
The man also stated that it is an endowment plan, which means that is a life insurance contract designed to pay a lump sum after a specific term (on its ‘maturity’) or on death.
Typical maturities are ten, fifteen or twenty years up to a certain age limit. Some policies also pay out in the case of critical illness.
Mr Ng then added that there has been no withdrawal made and payment has been made regularly since 1994.
“The agent who sold this policy to my dad is no longer in prudential so it’s more troublesome too,” he noted.
Mr Ng then popped another question asked by his father who is wondering why did the policy schedule indicate that he would be receiving $42,000 based on the contract he has in the 90s even though the assured sum is 20k?
“There have been no signs of the word “projected” anywhere in the policy schedule which is pretty misleading,” he added.

Source : Tyler Jwy Facebook account.
On 10 April, Mr Ng wrote that a representative from Prudential has contacted his dad and explained the policy as a whole.
However, there was still no explanation made regarding the letter which specifically mentioned the $42,000 to be received upon maturity.
His father then told the representative what went down on his visit to Prudential Singapore’s customer service during February, including the incident where he was being dismissed.
However, the Customer Service still denied his request to see the manager and told him to just go ahead with the complaints instead.
Mr Ng’s father was then informed that the company has no records of the letter and asked him whether there is a Prudential logo on it or envelope accompanying it.
“Just so all of you know, the first letter which accompanied the policy was sent in this gold coloured envelope during the year of purchase,” Mr Ng wrote.
Source : Tyler Jwy Facebook account.
Mr Ng then noted that he has sent the picture to the representative who told him that she will give the family a visit on Tuesday (11 April).
*TOC notes that not all the paid up premium is meant for the endowment premium, a portion of it is meant for the riders for critical illness and disability coverage, which is not recoverable.
Source : Tyler Jwy Facebook account.
Source : Tyler Jwy Facebook account.
Source : Tyler Jwy Facebook account.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Single mother complains to CASE about being overcharged by plumber but to no avail, only gets refund after sharing on social media

A single mother who was overcharged by a plumbing services company—namely Kwoi…

World Snack Fair 2017 to be held on 7, 8 and 9 April

The World Snack Fair 2917 will be held on 7 and 8…

Restaurant draws Malaysian Health Ministry’s attention over threatening remark of adding ‘special ingredient’ to customers who give negative review

After threatening to add a “special ingredient” to meals of customers posting negative reviews online, the Garden Western Grill restaurant in Malaysia sparked a public outcry. Despite later claiming it was a marketing tactic and ensuring food safety, many customers and the Health Ministry remained unsettled, associating the term with potentially unsanitary practices.

Privacy concerns raised over cameras in SIA aircrafts, airline says they’re been ‘permanently disabled’

Singapore Airlines (SIA) were quick to reassure passengers on Tuesday (16 Feb)…