Is there something you should be telling your insurer?

To disclose or not to disclose? Should you risk a rejected critical illness or life insurance claim because of inadvertent deliberate? omissions in your application form, or headbang your way through the small print and technical jargon, endeavouring to supply specific answers to open-ended questions and end up with a loaded premium?

Dont worry if you've taken the option of non-disclosure. You now have the opportunity to come clean, if you are a Norwich Union policyholder and other insurers could soon be following this company's tactic.

Earlier this month, Britain's biggest insurer instigated a tell-all campaign where insurance application forms are concerned.

Over the next three months Norwich Union NU will be sending letters to 5,000 life insurance and critical illness policyholders, chosen at random, inviting them to review their initial applications and notify the company of any medical details they may have omitted. If the response is deemed successful the company will consider extending this invitation to the rest of its 2 million protection insurance customers.

Policyholders not included in the initial pilot survey need not feel aggrieved; they are free to contact NU at any time to review their application form if they think they have told black or white lies, fudged or omitted key details.

The insurer's letter warns policyholders to answer questions about their health "accurately and truthfully". Such questions include level of alcohol consumption and amount of recreational drug use.

The objective is to reduce the number of rejected life and critical illness claims, rejected for the most part because policyholders have left relevant in the eyes of the insurer medical information off their original policy application. Such non-disclosure, as it is termed in the insurance industry, can render a policy invalid.

Any new information provided by NU customers will be used to establish whether changes need to be made to their current policies, such as a re-rating or a change in premiums. Cynics will see the exercise as an excuse to hike up premiums, to allow insurance underwriters the luxury of not paying for any mistakes made or questions overlooked when signing up policyholders in the first place.

There is also potential for 'then and now' confusion. Should you be reviewing your application in the light of any fibs or medical health omissions made if you can remember back when you applied, or are you being asked to accurately describe your state of health as it is now?