Received treatment for cataracts costing around $25 and filed an insurance claim
Court rules, ‘It goes against public morals and other social orders.’
A woman who claimed corn removal surgery as a reason has faced legal consequences after defrauding insurance companies out of over $1.5 million.
On October 8, Chosun Ilbo reported in detail about the audacious actions of Ms. A.
From March 2015 to 2017, A entered into 18 health insurance contracts, including products from Company B. In 2016, she secured 13 contracts with a monthly premium of $800 in just one year. Her monthly salary during the same period was $1,800, with no other sources of income.
In September 2016, A began her “hospital-hopping” for corn removal surgery. She visited approximately 20 hospitals to remove a cyst on her left foot during this time. She underwent the cryotherapy procedure thousands of times.
While A paid only $30 for each surgery, the insurance companies recognized it as an “insurance accident,” paying out between $300 and $400 per procedure.
As a result, from 2016 to last year, A received tens of millions of dollars from various insurance companies solely for corn removal surgery. When summed up, it amounted to nearly $1.5 million.
During the same period, A’s father also underwent corn removal surgery. He received $26.565 million in insurance money from one company alone after undergoing 887 surgeries.
However, one insurance company rejected A’s claim for insurance money. In response, A assembled a high-powered legal team of two former judges and one insurance company attorney and filed a lawsuit against Company B for insurance money.
The insurance company argued that “A took out multiple insurance contracts with the clear intention of obtaining insurance benefits for an illegitimate purpose, such as receiving cryotherapy procedures for corn removal almost daily.”
They also pointed to the exemption clause in the insurance product terms and conditions, stating that “insurance benefits will not be paid for skin conditions such as warts, acne, or hair loss.” They argued that cysts fall under this exemption.
The first trial ruled in favor of A. The court stated, “When looking at the number of insurance contracts of the same type that the plaintiff took out, the total amount of insurance money received, and the frequency of treatment, it is reasonable to suspect that the plaintiff did not take out insurance for an illegitimate purpose based solely on the evidence submitted by the insurance company.”
However, the second trial had a different view. It remarked, “A and her father received cryotherapy for corn removal so frequently that it is unusual. It can be inferred that they took out multiple insurance contracts, including this one, to obtain insurance benefits for an illegitimate purpose. This insurance contract violates Article 103 of the Civil Code, as it goes against good morals and social order.”
The court dismissed A’s claim. The Supreme Court upheld this decision on September 14. A is still engaged in lawsuits against several other insurance companies that refused to pay out her claims.
Most Commented