life insurance legalese -- anyone knowledgeable?

[grasswire]

I applied for a term life policy in November, and was accepted. No medical exam necessary, but I must answer three questions, among which is this:

"In the past two years, have you consulted a doctor or had treatment for heart trouble, stroke, cancer, lung disease or disorder, diabetes, liver, or kidney disease, AIDS, AIDS Related Complex, or immune deficiency."

I answered no. And it was true. I had not consulted a doctor for any of those diseases.

However, two weeks later I was diagnosed with type II diabetes.

Here's the tricky part. If a person has misrepresented "relevant facts" then the policy is null and void and they will not pay the benefit.

Which brings us to this: If the doctor has had a suspicion about a disease and ordered, for example, a test for diabetes or a test for heart disease prior to the person's application for insurance but the tests haven't yet been undergone, is that considered "consulted a doctor or had treatment"? I did not go to see the doctor for these conditions. The doctor simply had a suspicion to rule out something, and that is probably documented in her notes.

If you submit an insurance application with the knowledge at hand prior to the testing and diagnosis, is that considered misrepresentation?

I sure don't want to be paying premiums if they are going to declare the policy null and void over this.

Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. Your doctor's records should cover you, so to speak. As long as

there's nothing there about his suspicions and the tests were routine - annual or whatever - you'll be fine if questioned.

[grasswire]

4. the tests were routine cholesterol and FBS

I have no idea if her notes show she had a suspicion. Thank you for your response. I never had those tests -- I had put it off. The diabetes was discovered in the ER, independent of my physician.

[Fredda Weinberg]

5. The paper record will protect you. I understand your concern.

Yup, looks suspicious, but they'd have to prove knowledge of a pre-existing condition and the evidence is on your side. Look after your blood sugar level and don't let this bother you. You'll survive any challenge.

[Mike03]

2. I think you would be protected by the dates of the tests

But I have one question: Did the doctor, prior to you filling out your life insurance form, tell you that he/she suspected you might have diabetes--even prior to the test or test results?

[grasswire]

3. no

I haven't had the test yet that the doctor ordered -- I had put it off just for reasons of convenience. The diabetes was found in the Emergency Room when I had a hypoglycemic attack last week. Prior to that, no one said anything to me about diabetes -- the doctor had ordered the fasting blood sugar along with routine cholesterol testing. I have no idea what she put in her notes, though. Maybe she wrote "rule out diabetes" -- but she said nothing to me about that. The diagnosis in the ER was a surprise.\

To clarify:

Routine (as far as I knew) tests ordered in early Nov. FBS & cholesterol. Tests not done.

Applied for term life -- application received by them on 11/20

Diabetes diagnosed on 12/2