Hidden Charges in Credit Card Transactions

A compatriot was recently surprised when told that he could ask for waiver of his credit card annual fees.  It never occurred to him to ask.  All these years, and he's been paying for it!  He proceeded to ask for waivers, tracing the fees all the way years back.  Except for one bank (which he is going to cancel out), he managed to get his plea successfully attended to.  It amounted to quite a sum!

We thought everyone knew of this.  Then again, we did once ask a major bank why they wouldn't just make do without imposing an annual fee.  The reply was that a significant number of people simply do not ask for waivers.  Presumably, their ignorance, forgetfulness or generosity comes as a bonus to the credit card issuing bank.  So why should they make waivers a default?

The credit card annual fee, along with the GST, are printed as a separate line on the statement.  It is not a hidden charge, but the credit card holder do have to run through every line of the charge statement to locate it, as is the responsibility of the credit card holder.  There is currently no facility to be alerted of annual fees via SMS or other means.

Things gets murky however, when credit card companies pose a purchase with an amount different from that reflected on the customer's invoice with a merchant.

MICE Ranking encountered this with Zalora and Asos.  Internally, these companies had signed up with some foreign banks to settle their invoices, and instead of absorbing these bank charges as part of their domestic book-keeping procedure, they decided to let the consumers shoulder it - without pre-informing the consumers (at least, during the time of our purchases made last year).  So after the consumer clicks okay to a purchase order amount, they landed up with an add-on administrative charges over and above the invoiced amount.  This is imposed surreptitiously over the credit card statement.  Unless a consumer is eagle-eyed and fastidious, it is easy to miss out the surcharge that has not been agreed to because the credit card statement makes it appear as though a very lousy rate of foreign exchange has been applied.

What alerted us was that in Zalora's case, it was a local currency transaction.  There wasn't even supposed to be a foreign currency exchange involved.  After much hassle, they refunded us.  Nevertheless, this experience really can deter future support of their enterprise because busy people simply dislike hassles.

In Asos' case, they gave all kinds of excuses and push us from personnel to personnel.  Till today, they have not refunded the surcharge that was never listed on any of their pre-purchase agreement sent to us at that time.  They simply hope the consumers give up on their claim by blank-walling tactics.

We have shipped products from USA where any processing or bank charges in percentage or estimates were pre-informed in a standard agreement so that consumers get a fair chance to decide if they still wish to proceed with the purchase.  We've had good experience with Amazon, and so far, most of the major brand-names in USA abide by best practices.

In the name of fair practice, and customer retention - considering how expensive it is to advertise, market and promote a brand name - it is difficult to understand why vendors wish to sabotage themselves by refusing to do the same, and rather land the consumers up with shock and having to go through the inconvenience of pleading for reversals.

For a long time, we've suffered in silence. 

Then more and more complaints pop up in the news and in online media, all sharing similar frustration of having to deal with organizations that are not upfront.



Credit: The Straits Times

All along, we had only been pleading with Asos - to much waste of time and to no avail!

The sharing by affected consumers reminded us that we could have asked the bank to help us settle the surcharge that Asos imposed on us without our agreement. 

Eye Doctors

A relative went blind in one eye after a routine cataract at a private hospital in Singapore.  Red veins appeared almost overnight, and then suddenly, she could not see.  At the follow-up, she was told that the blindness is caused by macular degeneration. 

Several years later, we came across an oversees article that suggests that those with macular degeneration may not be suitable candidate for cataract operation for precisely the same outcome that this patient group runs a very high risk of going blind instantly after a cataract op.  If there is even this possibility, why has this not been pointed out to the relative before the op?  Did she made the mistake of going to a private hospital where the surgeon may place monetary targets over that of patient's welfare?  There has always been this doubt, especially since it is difficult to sue doctors in Singapore.  There are fears that the Singapore Medical Council may take the side of the doctors and so many complaints went unheard. 



We applaud the bravery of this couple, featured by Senior Health Correspondent Salma Khalik, Straits Times 03 May 2014..

Eye doc fined $10k for wrong lens implant

In this article, Dr Cheah Way Mun, who practices at the Eye Centre at Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre, had not admitted to his error until the fifth visit.  The patient and her husband had persisted in returning to the clinic every few days. 

Although the surgeon offered to do a second operation to correct the mistake without charge, usually by then, the patient may have lost trust for the surgeon, and refuse the offer for fear of further goof-ups.  We feel there should be a fast appeal process that allows the patient to choose another surgeon of choice and to have the surgeon who caused the error voluntarily foot the bill, even if the charges are higher the second time around.

In this case, the patient's affected eye never did enjoy the clear vision she would have had if not for the error.

It is yet another instance that makes us wonder: if the patient(s) had gone to Singapore National Eye Centre, wouldn't there have been more accountability?  In that, it is not so easy for the surgeons there to try to cover up their errors?



We found another sad case through this link http://forums.sgclub.com/singapore/man_sues_eye_230092.html

The original news article has been taken off the web, so we repost it here..

Man Sues Eye Doctor

http://health.asiaone.com/Health/New...11-185371.html

A MAN is taking an eye doctor to court for allegedly making a mistake in his diagnosis when he saw him for his poor vision.

Mr Yew Wei Kiat, 22, claimed he saw a handful of other doctors over five years and that they had diagnosed him as suffering from a different condition.

This was after he went for tests at a neighbourhood eye centre, a public hospital and the Singapore National Eye Centre.

Now he is suing the doctor he claimed he first saw, a consultant ophthalmologist, for alleged negligence in his diagnosis.

The doctor, Dr Cheah Way Mun, disputes this. He said he had taken "all necessary and reasonable steps" to investigate Mr Yew's complaints about his eye condition.

Court documents obtained by The New Paper revealed that Mr Yew claimed his sight deteriorated to such an extent in secondary school, he was unable to read what was written on the whiteboard in his classroom.

He claimed his eyes were also sensitive to bright light. Mr Yew said he saw Dr Cheah at the Ang Mo Kio branch of The Eye Centre in 1998 for short-sightedness and astigmatism.

He was then 11.

Three years later, Mr Yew saw Dr Cheah again when problems with his vision worsened.

He said the doctor told him he was suffering from an early deterioration of vision.

Mr Yew claimed he continued to see Dr Cheah until mid-2004 and each time he would complain to the doctor about his condition.

Polytechnic enrolment

In May 2004, Mr Yew asked Dr Cheah for a medical report for his enrolment into Nanyang Polytechnic for an engineering course.

The doctor then issued a medical certificate dated 14 May 2004 stating that Mr Yew had poor vision as he is suffering from Stargardt's disease, a retinal degenerative condition.

But Mr Yew said that, following a series of tests with other specialists over five years, he was told he did not have Stargardt's disease after all.

Court documents did not say why he chose to consult other doctors.

He was eventually found to have a chronic condition called benign intracranial hypertension (BIH), which leads to headaches and a loss of vision.

Now, he claims he can read only by using a magnifying glass.

According to a report from ophthalmologist Yap Soo Keong, MrYew also has to "put the pages very close to his eyes" when he reads.

Mr Yew claimed that Dr Cheah failed to use "reasonable care and skill" to treat him, causing him injury and loss.

Mr Yew is suing Dr Cheah for damages through his lawyer, Mr Leonard Loo.

He is also suing for special damages for his medical expenses, which date back to December 2000, and for his travelling expenses.

The total sum is not stated in court documents.

Dr Cheah, who is represented by lawyer Christopher Chong, has denied any negligence.

Mr Yew said he had seen Dr Cheah at The Eye Centre in 1998.

But Dr Cheah claimed that when Mr Yew visited the clinic in 1998, he was attended to by another doctor and was assessed to have long-sightedness and astigmatism.

According to Dr Cheah, the first time Mr Yew consulted him was on 13 Dec 2000, when Mr Yew had complained of poor vision.

He had diagnosed Mr Yew as having Stargardt's disease and that there is "no effective medical or surgical therapy available".

He had also advised Mr Yew to use glasses and reading aids to read small print.

He said Mr Yew was 12 then and "in good health" and "not on any medication".

He said he had seen Mr Yew on three occasions between January 2002 and May 2004, and Mr Yew had appeared to be coping well.

When Mr Yew consulted Dr Cheah for "advice in relation to his difficulty in enrolling in the computer or electronics course at a polytechnic", the doctor had examined Mr Yew's colour vision and found he had red-green colour vision defect.

As normal colour vision was a pre-requisite of a computer or electronics course, Mr Yew was advised to try for other courses.

Mr Yew, Dr Cheah noted, was not within the usual risk groups for BIH. And even if he did suffer from BIH, there is no viable treatment, he said.

Who's best for job of civil servant and MP?

Who's best for job of civil servant and MP?



This is today's headline in the news.

We didn't go beyond reading the headlines.

For MPs, we've always known that we want someone down to earth.

So far, there has always seem to be some sort of a barrier, no matter which MP we've come across.
Perhaps they are too highly educated, and in the pursuit of higher education and a more privileged lifestyle, have lost traction with citizens whose lifestyle are simplistic.

Perhaps with their background, they've been exposed more to the higher corridors than to the HDB corridors, and come across as unapproachable.

Or just perhaps, they are simply holding too many other portfolios, to come across as dedicated.

Whatever the reasons, sometimes we feel that we are reaching out to someone high up in the castle, who may not relate to ground issues the way we have to live through them.