I worked for one of the insurers that copped it the hardest from the RC. one of the most incompetent places I've ever seen which is why I can't get in board with the Thailand bad, Western good whingefest.
I didn't work in claims and I'm not a lawyer so I never had any reason to read a policy document. I always asked a manager or a sales rep to answer tricky questions about the T&C's. they weren't happy about that but the pol docs were gibberish and not something you should let an untrained, unqualified high school graduate interpret.
the Sydney Morning Herald did a massive hatchet job on the insurer. I think the journo had an axe to grind with Which Bank?. they laid all the blame at their feet. at no time did they point out that ultimately it was the Trustees of the super fund that signed off on the policy document. the Trustees also went along with the claims assessments that were made by the insurer even though it's their responsibility to act in the best interests of their members.
one of the big issues was the 30-year old definition of a heart attack. you're telling me that the super fund's lawyers didn't pick that up? gimme a break. yet no malpractice suits ensued, they just dumped all the blame on the bank and went on their merry way.
obviously that doesn't excuse the insurer and thank God I was able to retire early from that godforsaken place and eventually move to Thailand. but at the end of the day I'm not sure what the RC really achieved. my old company still went on its merry way of wasting gobs of money by being totally inefficient before eventually being sold to China.
nobody got arrested, nobody went to gaol, nothing really changed except that they lost a half bil per annum revenue (no lie) after the complicit Trustees dropped them like a hot potato ????
that's why I can't really get worked up about the "endemic corruption" in Thailand. same same but different.