A traveller who was denied entry to India after it introduced covid-19 testing guidelines will be partially covered for his losses following an Australian Financial Complaints Authority ruling. 

The complainant and a travelling partner were barred from boarding their flight from Bangkok to Mumbai on January 1 last year after the Indian Government implemented restrictions requiring proof of a negative PCR test within 72 hours of departure.

The insured said he was unaware of the requirements, which had been introduced that day. He said the requirements were not detailed on the Smart Traveller government website and the airline did not inform him of them. 

He returned to Australia on January 4, saying he was unsure how long it would take to receive approval to enter India and returning home was the most cost-effective decision.

He lodged a claim with Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance to cover additional flights and any non-refundable flight and accommodation costs for the India trip. 

The insurer acknowledged the man was unaware of the changes but denied the claim, saying he did not follow the guidance of the airline and the Indian Government on testing.

It noted the travel policy held exclusions for “errors, omissions in any booking arrangements or failure to obtain the relevant visa, passport or travel documents”. 

The insurer said the traveller should have made alternative plans to continue the trip rather than returning to Australia, noting it would take three days to receive entry approval. 

However, the complaints authority says even if the complainant took a PCR test and received a negative result after the requirement was introduced, he would only have been granted approval on January 6 and still been unable to board the initial flight. 

It says the travel document exclusion is not applicable.

“In this matter, I am not satisfied the complainant made an error, omission or failure in obtaining the travel documents,” the authority’s adjudicator said. 

“This is because the changes came in on the day of the flight and the exchanged information shows even if the complainant got a test on the day, approval would not have been granted in time to board the initial flight. 

“Accordingly, I am satisfied the reason the complainant was unable to board the flight was not because of an error, omission or failure to obtain the relevant travel documents and the insurer is not entitled to rely on the exclusion to decline the claim in its entirety.”

The authority says it was reasonable for the insured to return to Australia rather than wait for a PCR test result, given the uncertain time frame for test results and the limited funds he had to stay in Thailand. 

It says the insurer should assess the claim under covid-related event losses, and cover costs where the complainant had pre-paid and could not recover.

“Under this section there is no scope for cover for the additional costs incurred to return to Australia. While I acknowledge the complainant has outlined the costs he incurred, I am not satisfied the complainant has provided sufficient information he was unable to recover some or all of the costs.” 

Click here for the ruling.