Jump to content

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


webfact

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

The civil service cover for spouses is a completely different cover, and has nothing to do with the free emergency treatment.

http://www.thephuketnews.com/all-citizens-now-entitled-to-free-emergency-services-in-first-72hrs-61662.php#XjGw1q0WMWo56c27.97

Does NOT cover foreigners unless they are under SS or their wife's civil service policeis.  It states it covers ALL citizens of Thailand for free care for first 72 hours at ANY hospital . After that they have to be taken to the hospital they are covered at under their Gov Policy scheme. Foreigners not under their wife's Civil service policy or Social Security from working here are not covered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Having founded and owned an Insurance adjustment company and a private investigation agency for over 30 years, I suspect the basis for the denial is not listed in the Insurance Contract. 

 

Most all travel policies now exclude motorcycles even motorcycle taxis.  Some insurance companies may charge an additional premium and cover motorcycles  by endorsement. 

 

Having worked  independently for over 325  Insurance companies and  self-insurers  and recommended by the AM. Best company for all lines, I've never seen any policy limiting the number of accidents.

 

My recommendation is to examine the insurance contract very thoroughly and pay particular attention to exclusions and any content involving motorcycles.

 

 I would be happy to examine the insurance contract and offer my opinion for no charge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, gamini said:

you are wrong. as a permanent resident many years ago I got the free emergency treatment "id"  and I still have it.

If your now hold Thai citizenship or permanent residence then your not actually a foreinger are you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, steven100 said:

Try and get treated in the US or the UK after an accident ......

of course they want to confirm how the treatment is going to be paid ..... they are a business not a charity.

 

As for his insurance ....  inclusions and exclusions will be documented in the policy I would assume,  either he is covered or he is not ...  so if it only covers an accident on a motorbike once in a year and if that is in the fine print then thats it .....  you cannot argue if it's in back and white. The problem is not all the truth is told such as what is jake saying happened ? and what really happened ?   what has he told his family happened   ?

 

I am in no way defending the insurance company as I have little sympathy for the m .... just saying how it is.

In the U.K. Medical treatment after an accident, or anything else, is free on the National Health Service. Not in the US, I agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, HooHaa said:

yes that would be intereting to see. 

we dont know if he had a helmet on, whether the bike was a private one or an uninsured taxi, the sobriety of the driver etc.

 

under english law its likely he was breaking many more rules than he had broken here.

 

and we still haven't seen his policy or the terms, so i suspect you have very little idea of what you speak.

1) Yes but highly unlikely we will ever know even if the case went to court. It won't.

2) All irrelevant. IF the policy excludes injuries when not wearing a helmet (it almost certainly does) then that would be the basis of the insurance company's rejection of the claim. It is not. Ditto. Ditto.

3) How so. In any case irrelevant, English law does not apply in Thailand.

4) Ah, once again here, the ignorant telling the knowledgeable they have no idea. I have seen his insurance company's standard policy wording. I am highly experienced in contract law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, gamini said:

you are wrong. as a permanent resident many years ago I got the free emergency treatment "id"  and I still have it.

Thank you for posting that stevenl keeps arguing about that, will not admit to being wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dcsw53 said:

He paid his policy and the insurance company entered into an agreement to cover him. He then had an accident where he had to claim. After that accident the insurance company should have told him that any further claims would be refused. Whether they considered him reckless or not ( he was not driving just a passenger so this is higly debatable ) they still had a contract with him and as such should pay the claim.

Agree.

That's insurance companies for ya. If they can wriggle out, they will.

Hate 'em. Always have.

In most cases it is a license to steal money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mises said:

1) Yes but highly unlikely we will ever know even if the case went to court. It won't.

2) All irrelevant. IF the policy excludes injuries when not wearing a helmet (it almost certainly does) then that would be the basis of the insurance company's rejection of the claim. It is not. Ditto. Ditto.

3) How so. In any case irrelevant, English law does not apply in Thailand.

4) Ah, once again here, the ignorant telling the knowledgeable they have no idea. I have seen his insurance company's standard policy wording. I am highly experienced in contract law.

 

my but your hackles are now that the stream of coffee running through my nose has subsided, i would ask why you would make such a remark without posting the information to back up your claims,  or why you had not pointed out you had the policy information before making any assertions - it is not like the policy information is confidential.

I defer, however, to your high knowlegeability, ignore the contradictions in your remarks, and bid you a good weekend.

an expert on the internet, go figure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wide open for the lawyers to get involved.

 

IMHO as he was not the rider, he was the pillion, and it appears the bike was rear ended then reckless does not come into it. You are perfectly capable of riding pillion with one hand to brace yourself......IF the ride is riding responsibly. 

 

This to me is where the "reckless" could and should come in if the rider was a nut. However, if the bike was being ridden responsibly then this reckless red herring is just that ...a red herring.

 

It is standard practice now for insurance companies to refuse right off. Few claimants take it further and even fewer, perhaps less than 5% take it to a lawyer or the Financial Ombudsman. I did have to twice .... and won my full claim both times before the Ombudsman had determined. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 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.

I have been on a motorbike everywhere almost every day for more than 40 years without any accident  incident and have intention of ever doing so.

No offence, just showing every one's story is different :smile:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy fits the definition of the village idiot. It is entirely probable his bain dramage is genetic and was exercised to it's limits to obviously not wear a helmet in addition to his other idiotic behavior. This village idiot will be eliminated from the gene pool in the near future no doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Healthcare is a human right. Unil the public and all governments accept this principle, insurance companies will continue to reap huge profits off the ill and injured; hospitals and dcotors will overcharge; and the Pharmaceutical industry will continue to have huge markups on life savig medicines.

 

Government in every country worldwide needs to take over the provision of healthcare; regulate all providers/doctors/pharma as non profit and essential put health insurance companies out of business.   Once all this is done- a universal rule of reimbursement goes into affect in which a citizen of any country anywhere gets treatment and the reimbursement comes from the injured passport country.

 

Taxes of each country will fund it and providers will be limited in charges based pon what is reasonable and proper not what the market will bear. As an American, I continue to be appalled by the lack of a coherent policy towards healthcare. There is only one solution- a single payer system such as the UK has.  It has its faults but everyone is covered and no one is mortgaing their home or goin bankrupt from healthcare costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...