Hello!

I know of many cases, including myself, where we fell for promises made by insurance agents to take out life insurance (Prima, Merkur, etc.) during the "fat cow" period and took out contracts of this type for different periods - usually 10, 20, 30 to 40 years.

We were then promised that we could cancel the contract at any time during the term of such insurance (after 3 or 5 years from the start) and thus stop paying premiums, and at the same time stop saving or taking out life insurance and get back a pro rata share of the payments we had made up to that point.

In times like these, there are probably several of us who could very much use the money we have paid in and do not want to pay into this type of insurance any more.

The problem is that, after 2011, insurance companies do not want to hear of any cancellation of the insurance, including the return of the pro rata amount paid up to that point, and they refer to the legislation that protects them, which says that they can only pay out the amount paid up in the event of divorce, unemployment, the death of a parent, natural disasters and relocation abroad, and even then, the payout will be partly due to the initial costs incurred by the insurance company.

It is unfair that a person cannot, as a contributor, terminate this and get back the money he has paid in, and that even the State protects this in some way with the Code of Obligations in this case.

I propose that the law be changed so that the subscriber who pays the premium for such insurance can request termination outside these five reasons, which are non-life reasons and at the moment mostly "cover" the insurers more than the subscriber - because at the moment, apart from these 5 reasons for termination, it is only possible to put the insurance on hold, which means that you cannot get to the money you have paid in, but no further premiums are paid in.

At the moment, the insured-payer who wants to terminate the insurance is in a very subordinate checkmate position with respect to the insurer.