Corporation ‘not singling I.U.D.s’ in refusal to pay

Press, 2 July 1986, Page 3

Corporation ‘not singling I.U.D.s’ in refusal to pay

PA Wellington The Accident Compensation Corporation was not singling out LU.D.S in its refusal to pay out on injuries that are the result of women’s choosing to use the devices, the corporation said. The corporate affairs manager of the A.C.C., Mr Barry Davis, said the corporation had the same policy on all foreign bodies inserted into the human body, whether it be a pacemaker, a prosthesis, or an I.U.D. “Recent publicity seems to suggest that we have

changed our policy, in that we used to pay out on the claims but now don’t — that is just not the case,” he said. “We are restating policy that has existed all the way along.” The confusion has arisen from two categories of claims the corporation had. The first example was if the foreign body caused damage as the result of incorrect insertion. This meant if the I.U.D. cut into the uterus wall because the doctor had inserted it badly, women would be covered by accident compensation.

The second category was that of “known risk.” If the I.U.D. was inserted correctly by the doctor but began to “wander” after a time, and caused damage, the A.C.C. would not pay out on claims because it was a known risk of using an I.U.D. Mr Davis said this stance had not changed over time, and probably existed because “the Compensation Act did not underwrite the success of all medical treatment.” He did not see the policy as discriminatory, because it applied to al! foreign bodies, not only I.U.D.S.