Phuket hospital hits back over UK claims they put money first after tourist's motorbike accident

[bandito]

19 hours ago, tonray said:

When I was responsible for care of my elderly mom, at each hospital admission after providing insurance info, I had to sign a statement saying I would cover anything over and above insurance or they would  not admit her, they would provide emergency care but no admission unless I signed. This was in the US. If hospitals treated everyone for free, there would be no hospitals to treat anyone. Jake was not a taxpayer in Thailand so why would Mum expect free treatment ?

 

 

In fact at Samitivej Hospital in BKK, they will actually come into your room to settle payment if you cannot make it to the billing desk...555

 

In 1999 the Bangkok-Pattaya Hospital refused to admit me unless I put up a deposit, that while I was insured.

After phoning my Health Insurer, who did pay a deposit immediately, I got admitted.

While there I got visited every day with a request for more money at which I answered that I was insured and to contact my insurer.

After treatment was finished the hospital refused me to leave my room until full payment was made.

Thanks to the cell phone could I call my insurer who paid the bill and I could leave.

Suckers!  

[oldlakey]

17 hours ago, HooHaa said:

 

i believe he was actually quite lucky the first time - many travel insurance policies quite clearly state that motorcycle s are out.

 

im surprised they paid anything at all.

 

 

Perhaps they accepted and allowed the first claim out of the goodness of their heart, or maybe his insurance did include cover for certain motorcycle usage

Hmmmm and he wondered  55555555

[catman20]

i came here 17 years ago and im foolish enough to admit i never had insurance for years. i have insurance now , only time will tell if the insurance is any good and will pay out.

[chrissables]

20 hours ago, KittenKong said:

 

To my mind even sitting on a stationary motorbike in Thailand is reckless. These things are hideously dangerous as this chap has discovered (twice).

 

I've not been on a motorbike anywhere for more than 40 years and have intention of ever doing so.

Motorbikes are so dangerous, really, i am always being attacked by them, it's a terrible problem!

 

Being rear ended is dangerous, be you on foot, bike or motorbike. 

 

40 years of not being on a motorbike and handing out advise?

 

How do you travel around Thailand?

[captspectre]

15 hours ago, Bulldozer Dawn said:

Ever been to Phuket?

yes forty years ago, what are you saying? no other forms of transportation?

[captspectre]

1 hour ago, bandito said:

 

In 1999 the Bangkok-Pattaya Hospital refused to admit me unless I put up a deposit, that while I was insured.

After phoning my Health Insurer, who did pay a deposit immediately, I got admitted.

While there I got visited every day with a request for more money at which I answered that I was insured and to contact my insurer.

After treatment was finished the hospital refused me to leave my room until full payment was made.

Thanks to the cell phone could I call my insurer who paid the bill and I could leave.

Suckers!  

what you say is completely true! years go a friend of mine passed away in a bangkok hospital and they would not release the body until the spouse paid the bill! he had Military insurance and when the check arrived it was in his name! she had to pull some "thai" strings to get "him" to sign the check and het him out of the freezer and to the burner!

[chrissables]

17 hours ago, captspectre said:

ever heard of a songtail? a taxi?even a samlor?  there are other ways of getting around in thailand!

Songtail? Two tails? Is it some mad dog pulled trike?

[chrissables]

17 hours ago, Rc2702 said:

To have got on the bike shows a scant regard for his own wellbeing so he should have took a taxi with 4 wheels end of. 

So you never travel on a motorbike? They are illegal to ride or be a passenger on, you are aware of that i presume?

Edited May 13, 2017 by chrissables

[StevieAus]

23 hours ago, Old Croc said:

I think your argument that 70% of accident victims here leaving hospital on a bike is non relevant. He was a tourist on travel insurance not a local on the family conveyance.

The second accident was 3 weeks later and I can see the insurance company's reasoning that riding pillion with one arm in a sling could be foolhardy.

I'm not necessarily agreeing the company made the right decision, I do think the smaller cheaper ones sometimes seize any excuse to reject claims. Also the conflicting versions of the accident is concerning.

The mother telling lies about the level of hospital treatment to bolster funding efforts is lamentable. Some readers may be aware there is a government funding initiative now in place which requires hospitals to give free emergency treatment in circumstances like this.

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/976378-72-hour-emergency-treatment-for-free-at-any-hospital/

 

 

23 hours ago, Old Croc said:

I think your argument that 70% of accident victims here leaving hospital on a bike is non relevant. He was a tourist on travel insurance not a local on the family conveyance.

The second accident was 3 weeks later and I can see the insurance company's reasoning that riding pillion with one arm in a sling could be foolhardy.

I'm not necessarily agreeing the company made the right decision, I do think the smaller cheaper ones sometimes seize any excuse to reject claims. Also the conflicting versions of the accident is concerning.

The mother telling lies about the level of hospital treatment to bolster funding efforts is lamentable. Some readers may be aware there is a government funding initiative now in place which requires hospitals to give free emergency treatment in circumstances like this.

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/976378-72-hour-emergency-treatment-for-free-at-any-hospital/

 

I think from reading about this scheme when it was first announced that it only applies to Thai people

The private hospitals are supposed to treat them for "life threatening" conditions but from what I have read recently there have been a number of cases where it hasn't happened

I don't believe it applies to non Thais as in most cases ( apart from if you are married to a a government employee) you are not covered by any government scheme 

In this case I would be happy to be proved wrong

[Old Croc]

6 minutes ago, StevieAus said:

 

I think from reading about this scheme when it was first announced that it only applies to Thai people

The private hospitals are supposed to treat them for "life threatening" conditions but from what I have read recently there have been a number of cases where it hasn't happened

I don't believe it applies to non Thais as in most cases ( apart from if you are married to a a government employee) you are not covered by any government scheme 

In this case I would be happy to be proved wrong

See post #14

[Keesters]

Hospitals are in the business of health care and the business of health care should come before money. They are entitled to be paid but concerns about payment should be secondary to health care. Does a restaurant ask for proof of payment before you order and eat a meal? No. If money is so important to the hospitals that they might leave a patient untreated then they are in the wrong business and should instead sell noodles from a cart on a street corner.

 

 

[stevenl]

9 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

Its clearly the minivan driver or the minivan driver his insurance company who are responsible for all costs!

Since we don't know for sure there was a minivan involved, let alone that it rear ended the motorbike the victim was riding pillon on, no, not 'clearly'.

[Destiny1990]

19 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Since we don't know for sure there was a minivan involved, let alone that it rear ended the motorbike the victim was riding pillon on, no, not 'clearly'.

Yes the story mentioned a minivan banged in from behind.

So get the driver and or his company to pay all medical costs.why do people write here that the minivan driver should be the hook?

Edited May 13, 2017 by Destiny1990

[stevenl]

57 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

Yes the story mentioned a minivan banged in from behind.

So get the driver and or his company to pay all medical costs.why do people write here that the minivan driver should be the hook?

The story also mentioned a collision with an oncoming vehicle. As I said, not very 'clearly'.

[gamini]

22 hours ago, stevenl said:

Your ID has nothing to do with the new 'free 72 hour emergency treatment'.

 

You may be, inadvertently,  correct in that this new rule also applies to permanent residents, I don't know.

what I meant by ID was a 30bt card

[Chongalulu]

23 hours ago, HooHaa said:

 

i believe he was actually quite lucky the first time - many travel insurance policies quite clearly state that motorcycle s are out.

 

im surprised they paid anything at all.

 

 

I agree that common exclusion,but if it was covered then surely the second accident would be covered too? There can't be a clause based on "learn your lesson and don't get on a bike again". There can only be an interpretation of different circumstances regarding the second accident e.g. Was he deemed to be unsafe because of the sling,or was the driver in the first instance properly licensed but not the second? Some important detail is missing.

[Shiver]

Never thought I'd say this, but it seems both the hospital and insurance have a decent stance (insurance small print notwithstanding)

 

Like others have said though, from the description it wouldn't appear to be the insurance company's duty, but the 3rd party insurance.

 

Reminds me of when I bought  a new scooter and asked for 1st class, and asked them to clarify what was and what was not covered.  They gave me the info but basically said 3rd party will be taken care of but I wouldn't, with all kinds of limitations, such as 'will only pay  50% of costs' on some items.  I asked to buy 2 sets of insurance since I wanted 100% no matter what/when/where the event.  They laughed and said roughly 'na, we used to do that, but we lost money'.  No sh1t Sherlock, that's why I want the insurance.  These days I just make sure I have enough to take care of those events in the failure of a policy to cover me, and treat the policy as a mere legal requirement rather than something useful.

It's not the cost that bothers me, it's that I don't know if I'd be conscious or of sound mind after a currently unknown event,  Anyhow, I like walking and the bike can stay home.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Shiver

[stevenl]

13 minutes ago, nchuckle said:

I agree that common exclusion,but if it was covered then surely the second accident would be covered too? There can't be a clause based on "learn your lesson and don't get on a bike again". There can only be an interpretation of different circumstances regarding the second accident e.g. Was he deemed to be unsafe because of the sling,or was the driver in the first instance properly licensed but not the second? Some important detail is missing.

Yes, important information is missing. Was he wearing a helmet e.g.? It really does not matter whether the rider in the first accident did have a valid DL, only whether the rider in the second accident held one.

[Farang hunter]

What are embassies for if they can't help their own people

Edited May 13, 2017 by Farang hunter

[wakeupplease]

2 hours ago, Farang hunter said:

What are embassies for if they can't help their own people

Holiday destinations for the hardworking minsters and their bit on the side, they are not there to help you as that would be interfering in local situations

[orchis]

statement from insurance company :

https://blog.insureandgo.com/statement-regarding-jake-tonkin

[KittenKong]

23 hours ago, chrissables said:

Motorbikes are so dangerous, really, i am always being attacked by them, it's a terrible problem!

Being rear ended is dangerous, be you on foot, bike or motorbike.

40 years of not being on a motorbike and handing out advise?

How do you travel around Thailand?

 

I travel in my pickup, or a big bus.

 

In spite of not having been on a motorbike for 40 years I can promise you that in those vehicles I stand a much better chance of walking away from an accident unharmed than anyone on two wheels or on foot does. In the same way I know that anyone who goes skiing or mountain climbing has a much better chance of breaking a leg than someone who is at home reading a book. Those who wish to take the risk are welcome to do so, of course.

 

Edited May 14, 2017 by KittenKong

[happyas]

1 hour ago, KittenKong said:

 

I travel in my pickup, or a big bus.

 

In spite of not having been on a motorbike for 40 years I can promise you that in those vehicles I stand a much better chance of walking away from an accident unharmed than anyone on two wheels or on foot does. In the same way I know that anyone who goes skiing or mountain climbing has a much better chance of breaking a leg than someone who is at home reading a book. Those who wish to take the risk are welcome to do so, of course.

 

 I figure you buy 100kg bails of cottonwool to wrap yourself in.

That is of course your choice

When your number is up, that's it, you go, no matter how wrapped in cottonwool you are.

Edited May 14, 2017 by happyas

[Bulldozer Dawn]

Hmm.  The insurance company declines to pay up upon the grounds of recklessness.

 

But here's the thing, in a court of law, recklessness is determined by a jury.

 

And when thinking upon their verdict, the jury is directed by the judge to compare the behavior of the (accused/defendant) with that of a "reasonable person".  But, importantly, a reasonable person in exactly the same circumstances as the (accused/defendant).

 

So in this case, the question that the judge would ask the jury to consider is would a reasonable Thai person in Phuket, with a plaster cast on his arm, ride on the back of a friend's motorbike.  The answer is yes, of course they would, and they would not give it a moment's thought.  

 

Moreover, there are no other affordable transport options on death island.  Jake, as part of your first claim, did your insurance company pay for you to use daily taxis to commute around Phuket until your plaster came off....Yeah....didn't think so...

 

So the insurance company accepted a premium payment to insure this young man in Thailand, however when he sought to make a claim they refused to pay up based on a western version of recklessness.

 

Young man, if you are reading this, make sure you check if there are any time limits on contesting the decision of your insurance company.  As soon as you are well enough you should contact the Insurance Ombudsman back in the UK and make a formal complaint against your insurance company.  You may also engage a lawyer on a no win-no fee basis to pursue your claim.

 

The Ombudsman, or a court of law, needs to determine whether or not you were reckless, not the insurance company.

 

PM me if you need further assistance.

 

Edited May 14, 2017 by Bulldozer Dawn

[steven100]

11 minutes ago, WhiteRedPurple said:

A smashed head, broken leg, broken arm? And get on a plane to UK........Glad you aren't a doctor.......I would call you a name but I don't want you crying for gods sake.

 

 

where did i say anything about getting on a plane ?  ...

I was simply stating that most hospitals all over the world will want confirmation on how the bill is to be paid ... either insurance, cash or whatever .... most readers have said the same.

I am sorry that the guy ended up in hospital and I hope he gets the help he needs and recovers soon.  I hope he does eventually get money from the insurance company as they are crooks.

Edited May 14, 2017 by steven100

[sambum]

3 hours ago, steven100 said:

where did i say anything about getting on a plane ?  ...

I was simply stating that most hospitals all over the world will want confirmation on how the bill is to be paid ... either insurance, cash or whatever .... most readers have said the same.

I am sorry that the guy ended up in hospital and I hope he gets the help he needs and recovers soon.  I hope he does eventually get money from the insurance company as they are crooks.

I don't agree with you a lot of the time, but in this instance I am on your side! And I do hate it when people quote you as saying something that is a figment of their own imagination!

[NamKangMan]

 

I think the time is coming when ALL travel insurance companies will have an exclusion clause for riding a motorbike on Phuket. 

[stevenl]

22 minutes ago, NamKangMan said:

 

I think the time is coming when ALL travel insurance companies will have an exclusion clause for riding a motorbike on Phuket. 

Of course not, not even for Thailand.

[NamKangMan]

25 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Of course not, not even for Thailand.

 

Major holiday destination.  No public transport.  The insurance companies know they can not "prove" alcohol as a factor here, to be able to deny the claim.  The high incidents of accidents causing death and injury.  Hospitals ripping off insurance companies for treatment.

 

How long before the risk assessment section of the companies notice losses coming out of Phuket, by way of motorbike accident claims by policy holders?

 

Remember, we only read about the dead, and those who can not pay. 

 

What about the hundreds, if not thousands, that are injured here, and submit a claim????

 

How long do you expect the travel insurance companies to bleed profits out of Phuket's lack of public transport for????

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed.