CH-2025-000032 - [2025] EWHC 2988 (Ch)

By June 2021, Mr Dewji was again expressing dissatisfaction as regards the increased levels of premium that he, and also his wife, were paying on their Plans with Prudential. In a letter dated 3 June 2021, Mr Dewji seemed to be aware that Prudential were saying that there was a rating on his policy due to travel. Paragraphs 7 and 8 were a number of paragraphs referring back to an email from a Ms McCarthy (referred to in the letter as “CM”) at Prudential dated 28 May 2021 to Mr Bhaji:

“7)

C M has misinterpreted the letter of 16 August 2000 which was signed back then because MMD travelled extensively as a result of his work. That was required from [Prudential] because MMD was travelling to locations which were outside of those detailed in Section 8.3. To never use this some 20 years later as an explanation for a “rating applied to the policy from inception” is frankly absurd and is heavily contested by us

8)

If there was a “rating” applied, why would you send this information to the GP and not the Client directly? You would have had to get Client consent on this “rating” for a new policy and there is no such evidence to support your current assertion. Please provide documentary evidence of a your alleged explanation of “rating” which is currently rejected. Further, there is no mention of “rating” in any policy documents, conditions, reviews or letters from PIA. We suggest this is a fabricated story by your department.”

By email dated 9 August 2021, Prudential replied to an email from Mr Ali, Mr Dewji’s adviser dated 25 July 2021. The response was by way of insertion of text in blue at various places under Mr Ali’s original emailed text in black. The explanation regarding loading was set out clearly in answer to Mr Ali’s paragraph numbered one. Mr Ali had written:

“1)

The document signed on 16th August 2000 which was received by SAE by fax on the same date was MMD's decision to relinquish a benefit called "premium waiver". This was simply because he had ticked "YES" that he travelled outside of the UK for business apart from holidays on the application form. You have provided the copy application form so you are aware of this.”

Prudential’s reply (given by Mr Diarmuid Sugrue) was as follows:

“ I had said on our call that I did not know the reason for the loading on this plan. We have since been in contact with underwriting about the loading and the loading applied was for this client’s travel to countries that were deemed of higher risk at the time the policy was taken out. Medically, this client was deemed to be of average risk or ‘Standard Rates’ as the case may be. If any loading applies, including for Foreign Travel, Waiver of Premium is declined. This resulted in the ‘Special Terms’ being required which detailed the increased premium for this loading (£4,883.40 as opposed to £4,552.86 which was originally quoted), along with the ‘Special Provisions’ document which outlined the loading (2 per mil for the duration of the policy).

If there were a medical reason for the loading then we would not be able to share this information and the customer would need to contact their GP for the reason. However, as it turns out this is not the case here and we can therefore inform you that the reason was due to Foreign Travel.”

By email dated 30 September 2021, Prudential confirmed to Mr Dewji’s adviser:

“In particular, we note that PIA mistakenly indicated that the loading on the policy had been added on a medical basis when, in fact, the loading was applied on the basis of travel. This error was identified by a review of the contemporaneous underwriting notes, and was subsequently corrected.”