Liverpool Lou

I'm not sure what point you're making. Do you think this is in some way contrary to what I said? Not exactly, just adding a comment but some people would think that you were heading in that direction!

It's to do with ethics and the potential of being sued for fraud.

I am surprised that you, as the so called "expert" on here does not know about the limit on using private hospitals without prior agreement with the insurance company. I enclose a screenshot from the t&c of a well known UK insurance company. it clearly states its not for use for private treatment. Although I am able to find it, somewhere else in the document it states only government hospitals unless prior agreement is obtained. I'm surprised that you didn't read your own link before commenting on her expertise. That extract does not state that treatment in private hospitals, as opposed to government hospitals, is not covered.

Thank God for a rational comment on this subject, at last! Perhaps you could point it out to all those who are posting false and misleading information about it?

Actually we don't know if their insurance is from a UK company, could have been from elsewhere. Actually, the chances of the policy not having been sold in the UK is remote.

Yes, I know that.

Does your country (or any country) cover its citizens' uninsured medical costs when they're overseas? If not, why not?

Today's date is 28th February, I think.

Getting a report translated from Thai to English would be no issue whatsoever to an insurer.

Which "scam" is being perpetrated by the hospital he is in?

Nonsense, insurers in general will never have any issue with a legitimate claim, they have no need to as their risks are insured also.

He's not in Britain.

Time to give the take-your-money-small-print nonsense a rest unless you've got some personal experience to back it up.

It's basically their business model. Yes, a business model in which around 90% of all insurance claims are paid out.

Having a contract and having the means to enforce it are two different things. Having a contract that's possibly been voided and then trying to enforce it is a different thing also.

Perhaps because he did not comply with the policy conditions and voided the policy?

You got some personal experience of that happening?

Same as from even well-established AN members, complete nonsense. If insurers were renowned for not paying claims there wouldn't be any insurers as no one would buy the policies.

No.

There's a big difference between a flight from Phuket to Bangkok and a repatriation flight for a completely immobilised patient from Thailand to the UK!

"The chances are that the insurance only covers treatment at a local government hospital ... This is common...". No, that is not common. What is common is a limit on the insurer's liability.

The insurer does not need to explain to anyone except the policy holder what is going on and, presumably, he has a reason for not naming the company that could be working on a solution for him. One reason for not publicly naming the insurer could be that the policy holder could have voided his policy and does not want the backlash from the insurance company if he makes accusations when he was in the wrong.

"So many people" do not fall from balconies here, a very small number have done so.

That is the starting price... Our medical transportation services from Bangkok to the UK start from £65,000

That must be why, statistically, 90% of all claims are paid.