Case detailB a c k
Article 5 2. (a)
Article 7 1.
Article 7 2.
|National ID||Ombudsman of the Consumer 9th of December 2010 (Protocol No 2853)|
|Common name||Decision type||Other|
|Court||Συνήγορος του καταναλωτή||Plaintiff(s)||Consumers|
|Court translation||Ombudsman of the Consumer||Defendant(s)||Insurance companies|
|Keywords||contract law, information obligation, material information, payment, professional diligence|
+ Expand all
The practices of a trader to:
The Ombudsman of the Consumer received a number of oral complaints from consumers stating that several insurance companies delayed payments of money they owed to consumers, according to their life insurance contracts on the date of the termination of the contracts.
The Ombudsman then sent letters to the insurance companies asking for information regarding (i) the exact timing the life insurance money was paid to the consumer, (ii) the reasons of a possible delay in payment, if any (iii) whether the companies paid an interest in case of delayed payment, and (iv) how the companies informed their clients about their payment practices.
The Ombudsman then found that, although every insurance company used different payment practices, all those practices resulted in the same outcome, i.e. the unjustified delay of payment. The commercial practices used towards the consumers included:
- declaring that in order for the companies to execute their contractual obligations, the consumer had to submit additional documents (that were, however, irrelevant to the claim);
- systematically omitting to submit material information that is necessary for the consumer to execute his contractual rights; and
- providing information in an unclear way, in order to hinder the consumer from providing the requested supporting documents on time.
(1) Is it an unfair commercial practice to require consumers to submit irrelevant documents in order for them to execute their contractual rights?
The Ombudsman held that the commercial practices undertaken by the insurance companies were not in accordance with professional diligence, and were therefore unfair.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
1. The Ombudsman of the Consumer recommended to all insurance companies established in Greece to:
|There is no events for this case.|
|National ID||Common Name||Subject||Country||Link type|
|There is no related cases for this case.|
|There is no Legal Literature for this case.|