>Standard medical advice? Are you even reading what he wrote? His doctor did not clear him to fly.
That's not how insurance works. They aren't going to pay for stuff on the say so of one doctor. The expectation is that they pay for treatment according to published and accepted standards of care. In this case, those say that you can fly with broken bones.
>With all the responses you've generated here and the way you go about your argumentation I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you work for the insurer.
Of course I don't work for the insurer. I am just an experienced backpacker that understands the concept of travel insurance.
> It's crystal clear from the way they conducted themselves that the insurance company would find any excuse to deny his claim
I see no evidence of that. What they offered was exactly what travel insurance is there for. That is, travel home for further treatment after a patient is stabilized. OP wanted to argue he wasn't stabilized. In response, they told him specifically what he needed to get from his doctor in order to justify his claim. As far as I know OP, for whatever reason, never bothered to get that.
IMHO, it's debatable whether or not you should be travelling with unset broken fingers. However, if all you bring to your side of the debate is a single sentence, you're going to lose.
We also don't know what their reaction to paying for the emergency services would be. OP, for reasons that are clear only to him, has decided not to claim ~$6,000 worth of covered expenses.
Just to clarify your comment on "What they offered was exactly what travel insurance is there for." They didn't offer me anything. Not one piece of my cover was offered. They 'offered' me a flight home as a goodwill gesture. They stressed that they didn't have to. It was a really shitty tactic. If you complain to a company and accept "their goodwill gesture" you are agreeing that no further action will be taken. If I had accepted their flight home, that would have been my insurance void and I would have no grounds to appeal.
2. Any treatment or surgery which we think you do not need immediately and can wait until you return home. Our decision is final.
That's what travel insurance is. It's there to pay for care until you can fly home. Accepting their flight home isn't voiding your insurance. It's getting the coverage you paid for.
It would have been if they said "we will fly you home, as per your cover" but they didn't, the flight home was a goodwill gesture. If they weren't going to pay for my 2nd operation, I would have ditched the "reasonable attitude" and claimed for the 1st operation. They knew that, so by offering me the goodwill flight home they were literally trying to make me void my own cover.
Furthermore, the policy says clearly, until I CAN fly home. My DR had explicitly told me I could not. I wasn't going to risk my health for the sake of my arsehole insurance company and their bullshit attempts to wriggle out of paying.
Ask yourself, would YOU have ignored the advice of your DR, who knew your case personally, in favour of the "opinion" of a private company whose sole motivation is financial?
That's not how insurance works. They aren't going to pay for stuff on the say so of one doctor. The expectation is that they pay for treatment according to published and accepted standards of care. In this case, those say that you can fly with broken bones.
>With all the responses you've generated here and the way you go about your argumentation I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you work for the insurer.
Of course I don't work for the insurer. I am just an experienced backpacker that understands the concept of travel insurance.
> It's crystal clear from the way they conducted themselves that the insurance company would find any excuse to deny his claim
I see no evidence of that. What they offered was exactly what travel insurance is there for. That is, travel home for further treatment after a patient is stabilized. OP wanted to argue he wasn't stabilized. In response, they told him specifically what he needed to get from his doctor in order to justify his claim. As far as I know OP, for whatever reason, never bothered to get that.
IMHO, it's debatable whether or not you should be travelling with unset broken fingers. However, if all you bring to your side of the debate is a single sentence, you're going to lose.
We also don't know what their reaction to paying for the emergency services would be. OP, for reasons that are clear only to him, has decided not to claim ~$6,000 worth of covered expenses.