His doctor said that he was not fit to fly back to the UK!

The incentive to say so is pretty clear: if he flies away, not only does the doctor lose a 15,000 costumer, he can also be liable if anything does go wrong.

Maybe he was indeed in no shape to fly, but he should have argued it properly in those days. Even now, it seems more like "it would have been awful to fly economy" and not "it would have been dangerous".

You may argue the doctor gave the opinion in bad faith, but that's pure speculation.

As a patient what would you do? You have been given a medical opinion that it is unsafe to fly. I definitely don't think anything the guy did was unreasonable.

I never claimed it was in bad faith and I don't think it was. Considering incentives and conflicts of interest is perfectly normal and does not mean that someone is operating in bad faith.

I just claim that it's reasonable for the company not to take it at face value as the doctor is not impartial and may have been considering a different standard for "not fit to fly." I certainly do not take it at face value. Could he have been put on a plane with extra medical assistance, for example? That may still have been cheaper than surgery.

I think what the guy did was the best choice if he can afford it, but I also think it's not unreasonable from the company to say that it was not what travel insurance covers.

As an insurance company what would you do?

On one hand, you have published medical standards saying that he is fit to fly. You also have your own doctors review the x-rays and find no reason that he can't fly.

On the other hand you have literally one sentence from an intern saying he isn't fit to fly.

It's a no brainer that you find him fit to fly and deny his claim.

>As a patient what would you do? You have been given a medical opinion that it is unsafe to fly. I definitely don't think anything the guy did was unreasonable

Personally, I go to my doctor and have him write a letter giving the specific reasons why I am unable to fly.

I only really comment on the economy seat because my cover included £2,000 of curtailment cover, but they weren't even giving me that. They were offering me a cheap seat out of goodwill. If I had accepted that, I was accepting that I had no claim.

>this is exactly what travel insurance is (which is why it's so cheap)

And that's one of the huge issues!! Very often people don't read their policies so they have misunderstandings about their coverage!! This is a big problem!

I always read all of my policies, I suggest everyone else does the same. I want to be very clear what losses are covered and what my deductible will be before any losses occur. In fact, for legal documents, insurance policies are pretty easy to understand.

I really wish he included the text of his policy.

While I have sympathy for him, I think he got himself into a pickle when he flew to Singapore than claimed he was unable to fly. Yes, Singapore is a million times closer to Indonesia than the UK, but he should have known if he left Indonesia the insurance company would have expected him to return to the UK.

To be sure, travel insurance is very often a very good idea.

But it's travel insurance not "whole-world, any hospital, health insurance" (which I am sure you can buy, but not at the same price).

I knew it may cause issues with my insurer, but the surgeon in Bali was on holiday for 1 or maybe 2 days and my finger was hanging off... Singapore was the closest place I could think of that would give me the best chance of saving it. And i'd do it again, in a heartbeat.

His flying from Bali to Singapore is totally understandable. He was in pain/shock and not advised by doctors to avoid flight.