You web browser may not be properly supported. To use this site and all its features we recommend using the latest versions of Chrome, Safari or Firefox


It’s been terrific to see Australia get behind Mental Health Week – raising awareness and reducing stigma and discrimination. However, we still see cases every year where companies refuse to give insurance to people with a history of mental illness, no matter how minor or how quickly or completely the individual made a recovery.

Income protection insurance is most often identified as the product people with a history of mental illness struggle to get access to. Many insurers simply outright refuse to provide income protection to anyone with any history of depression, anxiety or other related disorders. A medical history including moderate post natal depression, or counselling for family difficulties can see people refused for cover.

Just because you haven’t disclosed your mental health history doesn’t mean you’re in the clear.

Although insurers will often refuse to provide insurance in the first place, they may also try to cancel a policy when a person makes a claim after having cover for years.

They justify this by saying the history of mental illness should have been disclosed in the original application for insurance.

Stigma and discrimination attached to mental health is breaking down evey year so it’s right to question how this practice can still be tolerated in 2015. Insurers are bound to comply with disability discrimination laws just like everyone else in Australia – but they can only discriminate against people with a history of mental illness if they have a well-founded reason to do so. That means insurers must take a nuanced approach to mental health. Why should a person who had one isolated period of post-natal depression, or depression following the death of a loved one be treated by an insurer as posing the same risk of claiming as a person with a severe long-term illness? They shouldn't be – obviously – but the reality is that in many cases they are.

If you have been denied insurance, or had your policy cancelled because of a history of mental illness, you may be able to take action. You can get in touch with us to discuss your options.

You can also share your story and keep up-to-date with beyondblue’s work in this area here: www.beyondblue.org.au/insurance

The contents of this blog post are considered accurate as at the date of publication. However the applicable laws may be subject to change, thereby affecting the accuracy of the article. The information contained in this blog post is of a general nature only and is not specific to anyone’s personal circumstances. Please seek legal advice before acting on any of the information contained in this post.

Thank you for your feedback.

Related blog posts

Consumer and the Law
Banking Royal Commission legislation introduced

On 28 November 2019, the Government introduced legislation in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. The legislation is designed to provide further protections for consumers and small businesses and is set to be passed in early 2020. Below is an overview of the proposed legislation. Click here for a recap of the Banking Royal Commission from our Head of Class Actions, Ben Hardwick. Under the proposed legislation, mortgage brokers will be required to act in the best interests of consumers when providing credit assistance. That means where there is a conflict of interest between the consumer’s...

Gavel and weights two people talking resized
Superannuation and Insurance
An end to for-profit Super funds?

A lot has been said and written about the Productivity Commission’s ground-breaking report into the efficiency and competitiveness (or lack thereof) of the superannuation industry since it was publically released a few weeks ago. Surprisingly however, one of the Commission’s 31 recommendations appears to have attracted no attention, despite the significant implications it would have for one prominent part of the industry: retail (or for-profit) super funds. The Commission recommended that all fees charged by APRA-regulated superannuation funds should be levied on a cost-recovery basis. The Commission reasoned that because super funds are legally obliged to act in members’ best...

Piggybank
Superannuation and Insurance
Under performance of retail Super funds confirmed

The Productivity Commissions’ final report into the superannuation system released today found the current system is “harming millions of members” with underperforming funds, multiple accounts and excessive fees. On 10 January 2019, the Productivity Commission released its final report into the superannuation system. Much like the Banking Royal Commission, the final report is particularly critical of the retail sector, both for underperformance and exorbitant fees. The final report found a significant number of super products were underperforming and that “most (but not all) affected members are in retail funds.” The report found that 77% of 5 million underperforming super...

Investment Statement Cropped

We're here to help

Start your online claim check now. Or, if you have a question, get in touch with our team.