DSTV TAKES INSURANE AND REFUSES CLAIMS

FORMAL COMPLAINT – FAILURE TO HONOUR VALID INSURANCE CLAIM AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICE

To whom it may concern,

I am lodging a formal complaint against MultiChoice (DStv) regarding what I consider to be an unjustified repudiation of a valid insurance claim, coupled with materially unfair and potentially ******** conduct.

Background

Since approximately 2015, I have continuously paid insurance premiums via debit order to DStv for decoder cover. These payments have been made consistently and without interruption.

Approximately three years ago, I was proactively contacted by DStv sales representatives and encouraged to upgrade to a DStv Explora decoder. Acting on your recommendation, I accepted the upgrade in good faith. At no point during this sales process was I advised—explicitly or implicitly—that my insurance policy required amendment to reflect a new serial number, nor was I guided through any such process.

Current Issue

Following a recent lightning strike, my Explora decoder was damaged. Upon lodging a claim, I was informed by your call centre agent that the claim would not be honoured because the insurance policy still reflects the serial number of the original (now obsolete) decoder.

This position is both unreasonable and unacceptable for the following reasons:

Continuous Acceptance of Premiums DStv has continued to debit insurance premiums monthly, without fail, for a period spanning nearly a decade—including the entire period after the upgrade. At no stage did DStv:

Notify me of any mismatch in insured assets,

Request an update of details,

Suspend or question the validity of the policy.

Duty of Care and Disclosure As the service provider and insurer (or intermediary), DStv had a clear duty to ensure that:

Policy records accurately reflected the asset supp**** and installed by your own sales channel,

Customers were properly informed of any obligations required to maintain valid cover.

The upgrade was initiated by DStv, not by me independently. It is therefore entirely unreasonable to shift administrative responsibility onto the customer after the fact.

Unjust Enrichment / Bad Faith DStv has effectively collected premiums for insuring an asset that:

Became obsolete years ago,

Was replaced through your own sales process,

Was no longer in use.

Continuing to collect premiums under these circumstances, while now denying liability, raises serious concerns of bad faith and unjust enrichment.

Potential Violation of Consumer Protection Principles This conduct appears to contravene the spirit—if not the letter—of South African consumer protection frameworks, including:

Fair, reasonable, and just contract terms,

Transparency and disclosure obligations,

Prohibition of misleading or deceptive practices.

Position

I reject DStv’s repudiation of my claim.

The reality is simple: I paid for insurance continuously. The insured risk (decoder damage) materialised. DStv is now attempting to rely on a technicality that arose solely due to its own failure to properly administer or communicate policy requirements.

Required Resolution

I hereby demand the following:

Immediate reassessment and approval of my claim for the damaged Explora decoder; or

Full reimbur*****t of all insurance premiums paid from the date of the upgrade to present, on the basis that the policy was effectively invalid and misrepresented.

Next Steps

Should this matter not be resolved promptly, I will have no hesitation in escalating this complaint to:

The National Consumer Commission,

The relevant Ombudsman,

Public consumer platforms and industry bodies.

I trust DStv will take this matter seriously and act in accordance with both legal obligations and basic principles of fairness.

Yours faithfully, C.OOSTHUIZEN