Conniving insurers are bad for pets

AS REPORTED earlier this week in the Mail, leading vets are worried that owning a pet might soon become something that only a privileged few can afford. This is not only to do with rising veterinary costs (up 20 per cent year-on-year in some cases) but also because pet insurance companies are increasingly refusing to pay for treatment.

That’s despite the annual average price of dog insurance hitting £378.26.

My annual premium is just over £1,000 — admittedly for several animals. Just after lockdown, one of them, Muffin, needed to have some teeth extracted. At the vet’s recommendation I went ahead, and duly submitted the claim to my insurers.

After several weeks they got in touch to say that my claim had been rejected — because the treatment had been for a ‘preexisting condition’. This was news to me.

It turned out that a few years ago the vet had recommended Muffin have her teeth professionally cleaned (I clean them at home, but it’s never quite the same).

I do have some vague memory of this, but I thought it was just a suggestion, not a clinical necessity, so I never got round to it. Apparently, I had three weeks in which to get this carried out, or forfeit any future claim. Again, news to me.

I am now left with a vet’s bill of almost £2,000. And Muffin has so many exclusions on her policy it’s questionable whether it’s worth insuring her at all — although of course I will continue to do so because, in truth, what choice do I have?

Given the sharp rise in people getting puppies during lockdown, I cannot help wonder how many animals will end up suffering because their owners have been let down by companies who will find every possible excuse to avoid paying out.