adminthe first of its kind in the country and it was an exciting project indeed, measured by the 1,6 million policyholders who had subscribed to this unique product.
Unfortunately, the deal went sour in-between resulting in Econet and Trusco, who were major players in the facility, taking each other to court.
Econet was being accused of terminating a contract under which the two firms would have offered a mobile phone-based free life insurance cover.
Econet — the second biggest company on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange by market capitalisation — changed the landscape of this economy and the lives of many Zimbabweans.
The company has managed to create employment, with the majority selling airtime vouchers — which is reported to be a brisk business.
However, it boggles the mind that it is the very same company that has ditched policyholders who have supported the product they had put out.
The entire market was confident the product would change people’s lives, judging by the response to the product to that of any other product the company has offered.
I do not have anything against the giant mobile company but I am thinking of those policyholders who had dropped other policies to join EcoLife. What becomes of them?
People had to spend more on airtime to have a better life cover and all this has just come to an abrupt stop.
ALSO SEE
Econet Wireless tops in customer service
On Saturday, I was reading a statement by Econet trying to assure its valued customers that they would be compensated only if they comply with certain conditions.
It seems it is a bit unfair for someone who has been contributing since 2010. The company said it will only honour claims from beneficiaries who as at February 17, 2012 were entitled to make a claim in respect of any EcoLife customers who were registered for free life cover. Econet goes on to say that in order to claim the death benefits, beneficiaries
must comply with orders stated by the company, which looks like very few people will benefit.
However, my problem is that the whole facility has not in my opinion been properly explained to people from the onset. Who are those subscribers and how will their relatives know that they were subscribers unless Econet comes out and communicates with policyholders. How many policyholders know what they are worth? I believe that these are
pertinent questions that Econet needs to address.
Econet has made it clear that a claim duly completed on the prescribed form must be submitted to FML within 90 days after the date of death of the subscriber, failing which the
claim will lapse and not be enforced.
This clearly indicates that very few affected subscribers would be able to follow the procedure and this will result in the claim lapsing. This means the subscriber would have lost out and who would benefit?
And for those who managed to submit forms within 90 days, uncertainty still awaits them as FML will not be obliged to make a payment until a proper death certificate indicating the cause of death of the subscriber.
They also require a police report if death of the subscriber resulted from an accident and any other information required by FML for purposes of assessment of the claim.
Who will meet these conditions — how many will benefit and how much was generated from the business?
However, the firm said other benefits, which had accrued to Econet customers at or before midnight on February 17, 2012 would be paid.
It is every subscriber’s sincere hope that all benefits would be paid or Econet should give more detail on the issue to avoid speculation and mistrust.
If they do not do this I fear that their next product outside their core business would face resistance from the market.
l [email protected] or [email protected]
Online Reporter