After you file an insurance claim, it is common for the company to call and ask you to pull your medical records. The hand hesitates, though, when the request is not for one or two years but for a full ten years at once. That paperwork is the national health insurance treatment history — every hospital you visited and every procedure you had, all laid out in one place. Can you really hand it all over? Could they be lining things up to nitpick and trim your payout, or refuse it outright? Those are the first thoughts that hit you the moment the form lands in your hands.
So slow down for a second. If the records genuinely fall within the scope needed to pay out the claim you filed, flatly refusing to submit anything is not realistic — looking uncooperative only drags the review out, and the one who loses is the claimant. What you can separate out, freely, is "how much do I hand over" and "what exactly am I agreeing to." Frame it not as refuse-or-accept, but as a negotiation over scope, and the whole thing feels less heavy.
There is a reason the company reaches back a full decade. They want to check whether you had an illness before signing up, and whether you disclosed it properly at the time. This is the duty-of-disclosure issue, and if you stumble here, the claim can be denied or the contract itself can wobble. That is why they want a wide look at your past treatment. On top of that, if the patient has passed away and a surviving family member is filing on their behalf, the person signing the consent is now a relative — and the weight of that feels different.
The part truly worth a hard look is the "company-appointed doctor's opinion" consent that sits quietly off to one side of the form. In plain terms, it lets the company pass your medical records to a physician it hired and have them re-judge the matter. That goes beyond simple fact-checking: depending on how that review comes back, whether you get paid — and how much — can shift. So treat this box differently from the rest; don't lump it in. Instead of ticking every box on reflex, go line by line and see exactly which permissions are tied together.
None of this means you should block everything. The single test is this: is the material directly connected to the claim you just filed? If they sweep in old treatment records that have nothing to do with the claimed illness, or push the appointed-doctor re-review consent in as part of the same bundle, you can carve out that piece and ask why it's needed, or ask them to narrow the scope. If there is a legitimate reason, the company should be able to explain it.
If you can't decide on your own, it is better to show a copy of the consent form to a loss adjuster or somewhere that has handled this kind of dispute and have them look it over. If cost is a concern, start by knocking on the financial supervisory authority's complaint desk or a free consultation line. A signature, once given, is hard to take back — keep just that one thing in mind, and you won't grab the pen too quickly in front of the form.
What's written here is simply a rundown of a situation many people run into. Your own case turns on the exact wording of the policy you signed and that particular consent form, so for the real thing, please have a professional look at it with you directly.