Policy Holder’s Right To Learn The Truth Of Investable Life Insurance

Since investable life insurance has the characteristics of both general life insurance and securities investment funds, the policy holders should enjoy the right of securities investment fund investors, and the consumer definition range of “Law on the Protection of Consumers’ Rights and Interests” should be expanded to effectively protect the consumers’ rights and interests. In this paper, we mainly focus on the problem of policy holder’s right to learn the truth of investable life insurance. After we propose the problem through a typical case in the Introduction part, we discuss in depth in four parts as below:In the 1st part, the judgement mode and reasons of the court of disputes of investment life insurance policy holders. The court judge only in the relative field of "insurance law", reflecting an obvious single thinking mode. The reasons below this judgement is: based on the strict interpretation of current laws, which, however, neglects the securities investment fund property of investment life insurance products, consumer property, and the usage of the principle of honesty and credit.In the 2nd part, special right to know of policy holders. Investment oriented life insurance is fund in essence, thus investment life insurance policy holder is a consumer. Compared with the insurance company, as the insured has no right to know the contents of consultation on an equal opportunity, no access to information, understanding ability is weak, susceptible to misleading sales, action ability is weak and other factors, the applicant is in fact a weak position, thus the principle of honesty and credit can be applied to protect the insured’s right to know.In the 3rd part, the right to the truth of policy holders of investment life insurance. From the analysis of transaction rationality, contractual obligations and the principle of honesty and credit, the policy holders’ right to know range should cover the disclosure of the investment strategy, product characteristics, cost sharing, bonus calculation method content of "securities investment fund law", "consumer protection law" and other normative documents. Seeing from the voluntary information disclosure, information disclosure and operators from the operator of mandatory, the insurance company shall give the insured more access to information mode choice, the acquisition mode should also be insured according to their own situation to decide. From the analysis of the insurance company mandatory disclosure and voluntary disclosure, the insurance company not only has the obligation of disclosing information, but also should disclose to policy holders in a convenient way. The insurance company shall give policy holders more choices for information achievement methods such as e-mail, SMS, phone call. What’s more, the access methods of individual information should be decided by policy holders. From analysis of the nature of liability and loss calculation standard, the insurance company in violation of investment oriented life insurance the insured’s right to know, should bear the liability for contracting negligence judgement or contract responsibility according to the covenant, not lumping together. In addition, the insurance company shall bear the liability for breach of contract not liability, loss calculation standard should be based on the actual loss is appropriate, the standard of compensation to the compensatory standard is appropriate, rather than punitive standard.In the 4th part, the advice of improving the protection of the right to know the truth of policy holders of investment life insurance. Since the legislation on the protection of the right to know the situation of the insured is not perfect, the range of consumers of "Securities and "Securities Law of consumer rights protection" should be expanded, and the regulatory documents such as "management measures" should be revised. What’s more, when interpreting the securities and the range of consumes, the judges could moderately expand the ranges, but not unfairly protects the weak at the cost of legitimate interests of strong.