Astrenska Insurance Limited · DRN-6206196

The complaint Mr and Mrs P are unhappy with the service they received from Astrenska Insurance Limited trading as Collinson Insurance when they claimed on their travel insurance. What happened Mr and Mrs P were on holiday when Mrs P sustained an injury and was later admitted to hospital. As Mr and Mrs P were on a long holiday, to various long haul destinations, they wanted to continue their trip. Initially Astrenska said that Mr and Mrs P shouldn’t have been sold the policy but then agreed to cover the claim. Astrenska said they’d withdraw cover if they continued the trip but would pay for them to return home. Mr and Mrs P complained to Astrenska about the decision to withdraw cover and the service they received. Astrenska maintained their decision was fair, based on the medical evidence, but awarded £60 compensation for customer service issues. Unhappy, Mr and Mrs P complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Our investigator looked into what happened and upheld the complaint. She didn’t think Astrenska had acted reasonably when withdrawing cover as she thought the medical evidence indicated that Mrs P was well enough to continue with her trip. She also thought Mr and Mrs P had been caused avoidable worry during the period of time that Astrenska was reviewing their cover. She thought Astrenska should pay Mr and Mrs P a total of £500 compensation and remove the restrictions Astrenska had placed on their liability for the claim. Mr and Mrs P accepted the investigator’s recommendation but Astrenska didn’t agree. In summary, they said the medical evidence demonstrated there were risks in Mrs P remaining abroad and they’ve acted on the basis of the advice provided by their Chief Medical Officer (CMO). They said the terms allowed them to follow their CMO’s advice when there was a difference of medical opinion. These further points didn’t change the investigator’s mind about the outcome of the complaint and so the case was referred to me to make a decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. The relevant rules and industry guidelines say that Astrenska has a responsibility to handle claims promptly and fairly. And they shouldn’t reject a claim unreasonably. The policy terms and conditions say: B7 Emergency Medical Expenses and Medical Repatriation – If you need emergency medical treatment abroad & If you need to be brought home

-- 1 of 3 --

There is no cover for: 3. Any costs which in the opinion of the treating medical practitioner or in our opinion are not medically necessary or can be delayed until your return to your home country. If the treating medical practitioners’ opinion is not the same as our doctor’s opinion, then our doctor’s opinion takes priority. 4. Additional costs incurred if you choose not to follow our repatriation plan. I’m upholding Mr and Mrs P’s complaint as I don’t think Astrenska treated them fairly. I say that because: • It wasn’t Mr and Mrs P’s fault that there was an issue with their cover. They took out a policy with the appropriate level and duration of cover for their needs. It seems most likely that they never should have been sold the policy on these terms. However, that’s not as a result of anything Mr and Mrs P did. It seems most likely an error on Astrenska’s part at some point during the sales process. I think the worry about the potential lack of cover caused Mr and Mrs P significant distress and inconvenience at an already difficult time. • The treating doctor considered Mrs P was well enough to travel and that opinion was initially endorsed by Astrenska’s nurse. That decision was reversed on further review. However, before making that decision Astrenska didn’t consult directly with the treating team or explore what other options were available to Mrs P. • I think that would have been fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The treating doctor would have been best placed to address any concerns about the risks of ongoing travel. But Astrenska didn’t take any steps to further understand this, despite Mrs P making it clear she wanted to continue with her trip. • Our investigator also highlighted that the position wasn’t reviewed again even after there was an update about Mrs P’s progress. Astrenska didn’t dispute this or provide any further evidence to demonstrate a further detailed review took place. • In reaching my decision I also bear in mind that Mrs P was also travelling in countries which gave her access to care under a reciprocal health agreement. The standard of healthcare in the places she was visiting was also of a good standard. And Mr and Mrs P’s trip itinerary also included periods where she could rest and recuperate. So, whilst she had been very unwell, I don’t think her desire to continue with the trip was unreasonable in the circumstances, particularly given the advice she’d received from the treating team about how she could manage her recovery. • The decision to remove cover left Mr and Mrs P in a position where they had to continue their trip without the benefit of any cover at all. In the circumstances I think this caused them a lot of worry and stress, which could have been avoided if Astrenska had taken more steps to engage with the treating team. • Bearing in mind all of the above I don’t think Astrenska exercised their discretion fairly in the specific circumstances of this case. Putting things right Astrenska needs to put things right by: • Paying a total of £500 compensation to Mr and Mrs P for the distress and

-- 2 of 3 --

inconvenience caused by poor service. That includes the £60 already offered by Astrenska. • Reassessing the claim without limiting liability due to Mr and Mrs P’s decision to remain abroad. However, the claim will be subject to any remaining policy terms and limits. My final decision I’m upholding this complaint and direct Astrenska Insurance Limited trading as Collinson Insurance to put things right in the way I’ve outlined above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr and Mrs P to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Anna Wilshaw Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --