The company said:"The RSA Referral Vet Network has been established to give customers access to a trusted network of vets that provide a high standard of service and value for money. However we do understand that in some cases where the primary vet recommends a referral practice and circumstances dictate that our nearest Network partner is not suitable, we will allow our customers to make a choice without being penalised.
If the treatment in question is covered under the policy, there will be no additional fee charged whether or not they choose to use a Network practice."
Vets For Choice, a group of referral practices campaigning against RSA's Preferred Referral Network, welcomed the news.
However other brands, such as MoreThan, Tesco and Argos, have proceeded with the penalty.
Clive Elwood, one of the referral practitioners behind Vets For Choice, said: "The big question to ask now is if John Lewis can opt out of the fines why can’t Tesco and Argos?
"John Lewis clearly does not agree with springing extra charges on their customers at the point of need and this seems to be in line with their reputation for better customer service.
"MoreThan, Tesco and Argos customers should rightly ask why they are being treated differently to John Lewis customers."
In a press release, Vets For Choice highlighted RSA's July announcement that it was extending its then 29-practice strong referral network by 24, noting that only weeks later it announced its group operating profit was up 20% to £312 million.
In a robust response, an RSA spokesperson said: "The handful of vets behind Vets for Choice have point blank refused to discuss the real issue with non-emergency referrals - the huge variation in costs being charged to pet owners by some vets and paid for by insurers. Vets for Choice has refused to address this issue with us either directly or indirectly, and their desire remains to have a complete lack of transparency about their costs and charges. We are no longer prepared to duck the issue of cost and the lack of transparency in vets’ charges. This impacts on pet owners and means their cover limits do not go as far as they should.
"Our network partners recognise that for pet insurance to remain affordable, the veterinary and insurance industry needs to work more closely together on behalf of customers. Vets for Choice are happy to discuss any issue but the real one and they continue to knowingly distort the facts. The reality is that we have now had 12,700 referral claims from our Network partners, with only 79 customers choosing to pay the £200 charge to use a non-Network partner – well under one percent of all customers. The reality is there is no huge public outcry. The reality is that we have not seen any rise in complaints. The reality is that is our customers are more than happy to have our Network partners treat their pets, knowing that their cover limits are going further.
"Vets for Choice also mentioned our 20% rise in Group Operating Profit. The key word here is Group – the fact is the majority of our profit was made from our international markets. Group operating profit bears no relation to how our UK pet insurance business performed and it is disingenuous to link the two. It is also disingenuous to imply that all brands should act in the same way as their business models differ according to the customer segment they wish to attract. As ever, the choice remains with the customer."