In a case brought to attention, the claimant, who secured his coverage via superannuation, applied for a $9300 monthly policy intended for a two-year coverage span back in March 2020.
The claimant's struggle began in August 2019 when his general practitioner declared him medically unfit for work due to "significant psychological distress," primarily catalyzed by workplace bullying.
As a recourse, the individual took personal leave in August followed by paternity leave in October of the same year. Although he resumed work in October 2020, he had to suspend his professional engagements again by December.
In September 2021, the claimant submitted a request for income protection benefits, citing an adjustment disorder diagnosed with mixed anxiety and depression as the reason inhibiting his capacity to work.
However, MetLife rejected the claim in July 2022, accusing the claimant of inaccurately representing his medical history. The insurance provider argued that the applicant falsely stated he hadn’t been “diagnosed with or sought medical advice or treatment” for psychological issues at the time of application.
MetLife asserted that the applicant already exhibited psychological distress, hindering his work capability long-term, and had they known, the policy would not have been issued. They determined his stress related symptoms equated “to a psychological condition.”
The claimant countered, maintaining he neither identified with a history of psychological ailments during his application process, nor would a typical person in his context.
AFCA elaborated, saying although the complainant experienced "significant stress in 2019," ordinary perception does not always align stress with a psychological or clinical mental health condition. The inquiry focused on awareness of any conditions at the time, not diagnosis existence.
AFCA highlighted that the treating GP did not insist on mental health assessments commonly expected when symptoms emerge, and the sole "treatment" employed was voluntarily steering clear of the work environment, a decision lacking a formal diagnosis.
They elucidated that “Even if the answers given were not actually true (because with the benefit of hindsight the complainant was in fact suffering from a psychological or mental health condition), the panel accepted a reasonable person in the circumstances would also have reached the same belief as the complainant did.”
Following the conclusion, AFCA mandates MetLife to process and revisit the claimant’s submission and communicate the outcome to Hostplus, the coverage trustee, within a 60-day frame. The original content was reported by the Australian Financial Review.
