Dear Editor,
Permit me to wade into this public exchange between Mr. Joel Ramdeen, self-employed Guyanese worker and Dianne Lewis Baxter, Publicity and Public Relations Officer of the NIS. Ms. Baxter’s letter of October 17, 2009 in SN publicly confirmed that Mr. Ramdeen’s NIS claims for sickness benefit were disallowed. According to Ms. Baxter, these claims were disallowed under National Insurance & Social Security (Benefits) Regulation 23 because Mr. Ramdeen was not in insurable employment and he did not pay contributions for insurable employment for at least 8 weeks out of a total period of 13 weeks immediately preceding the contribution week in which he was incapacitated.
But Ms. Baxter then stated in her letter that contributions were paid but late and relied on section 8(1) of the Regulation to deny Mr. Ramdeen’s claim.
Firstly, if Mr. Ramdeen was not in insurable employment why were outstanding contributions collected from him? Wouldn’t the fact that Mr. Ramdeen was not involved in insurable employment mean a complete denial of his claim and that no contributions should be collected from him? However, for some reason NIS collected contributions from Mr. Ramdeen and demanded more contributions.
Secondly, on the issue of contribution it must be stated unequivocally that section 8(1) is a travesty. In effect, it allows or encourages one to pay late contributions and then bars the claim. The late payer funds the NIS and does not obtain any relief. The only plausible explanation for Mr. Ramdeen paying contributions after his injury is that Mr. Ramdeen contacted NIS and was notified that he should pay his outstanding contributions in order to be considered eligible for sickness benefits. Mr. Ramdeen reportedly paid the late contributions from January to July 2008 but was still denied benefits.
What the NIS should have reliably and truthfully informed Mr. Ramdeen after his accident in January 2008 was that section 8(1) and its draconian, unconscionable and reprehensible application would result in the evaporation of all those contributions he struggled to pay from his hospital bed for six months from January 2008 to July 2008. Imagine a hardworking Guyanese who is incapacitated and bedridden having to struggle to find the funds to make contributions when the NIS knew that his efforts would amount to nothing.
Furthermore, the NIS allegedly wrote Mr. Ramdeen requesting $32,430, plus interest of $2,091 from June 2008 to February 27, 2009 in outstanding contributions when it was aware that Mr. Ramdeen’s payment of such funds would not translate to any benefits for Mr. Ramdeen.
At a minimum, I hope Parliament reviews section 8(1) to prevent such a travesty in its application. The government has to enact significant changes to the NIS and how it does business. NIS should not be collecting outstanding contributions from injured self-employed workers who were deemed to have not been working in insurable work and for whom they have already denied benefits. If NIS collected outstanding contributions from Mr. Ramdeen in this case its actions should lead to payment of benefits since Mr. Ramdeen relied on NIS’ representations and had a legitimate expectation of payment after fulfilling his end of the bargain, which was to pay contributions. He acted reasonably and in good faith on NIS’ advice to his disadvantage. Finally, Mr. Ramdeen’s reliance on NIS’ advice was to his detriment since the outstanding contributions he paid in good faith to NIS deprived him of vital funds which could have been applied to his convalescence rather than to NIS. I hope the NIS does the right thing in this case. If not, Mr. Ramdeen should consult a lawyer.
Yours faithfully,
Michael Maxwell
