I propose that the law prohibits the use of general conditions for insurance services and stipulates that, for all or for certain types of insurance, all its elements and circumstances must be defined in the contract between the insurer and the insured.
Many people have taken out insurance (life, property, health, etc.) in order to cover certain events in their lives, thinking that they were thereby insuring themselves against the possibility of a certain unwanted event happening to them or to their property. They signed a vague contract and received with it the so-called general conditions, which contain the essential elements determining when and how the insurance can be invoked, and a multitude of conditions and exceptions which made it difficult or even impossible to invoke the insurance. In short, people are paying large sums of money thinking they are insured for something they are not. General conditions are written in a complex way that is difficult for the average person to understand, and insurance agents, in order to earn commission, often gloss over conditions that are unfavourable to the insured and present them with mainly good points.
The system of remuneration in the insurance business is such that agents tend to conclude as many contracts as possible for the highest possible amounts, since their earnings depend on the number of contracts and the amounts contracted. Many of them take advantage of people's ignorance and sell them something that they do not need or do not really understand all the terms and conditions, which are laid down in a complicated way in the general conditions. For the reasons given above, the agent has no interest in presenting to the insured even those provisions which are unfavourable to them.
The law should stipulate that all the elements and circumstances must be set out in the contract itself. It should prohibit the possibility that the contract refers to general conditions.