to think you don't go on holiday whilst having a high risk pregnancy and without adequate insurance

[Defenderwife]

Woman gives birth after food poisoning whilst on holiday in the Dominic Republic.

She had a cervical cerclage so knew she had a high risk pregnancy.

Her insurance didn't cover her entire pregnancy.

They are now stranded with a premature baby in a foreign country with no financial help and are relying on donations and GoFundMe.

I have made a donation but inside I feel almost angry. Why on earth have they let themselves be in this situation? That poor poor child.

My god how desperate are you guys to make out they had the wrong insurance? The statement clearly says they did. There is a lot of conjuncture about things we couldn't know a thing about which may or may not have been covered but what happened was, and that's all that is relevant.

No, it does not. It states that up to 29 weeks the pregnancy was covered. After 29 weeks the pregnancy was no longer covered. It states that the complication that she had meant that she was(bloody lucky) and that she was covered.

However. Looking at that statement. If the complication she had meant that the baby was in distress and care was required while in utero, that would not have been covered.

And regardless, even if it turns out she was wrong and she was covered, she thought she wasn't, she thought she was travelling without proper insursnce. So that is still irresponsible

Well one could equally enquire why you are so desperate to argue that they had the correct policy?

I'm not arguing- i am pointing out what is clearly set out in their statement, after pages of posters saying "ah ha! So they weren't insured after all!"

The insurance company have said its fine. I think it's strange that you are stil insisting its not.

And apparently still accepting donations.

Why have they not stopped accepting the money?

The insurance company have said that she was covered because what happened was essentially not a pregnancy matter. I am not arguing that she isn't covered. I'm restating what was in her own account of events - she didn't have proper travel insurance for at least part of her trip.and that is very stupid, or very naive, or both.

A donor at top of just giving page asking for her donation back

Money still being pledged though,

lushinthepub You seem to be missing the finer nuances of this. In this particular instance, as it has turned out, fortunately, the woman is covered. But it doesn't get away from the fact that her holiday took her over the 29 week threshold for pregnancy, and hers was not a straightforward one, so the policy was not adequate.

Which was foolish, to say the least.

Almost 73k. A lot from people apologising they can't give more. I wonder how they will feel about the fact they are making an enforced charitable donation to the unit. Because they are currently giving under very false information.

Libraries.... that donation page is very misleading. Unless I've misread.... it reads as if you are still donating as the insurers are refusing to pay out.

Indeed.

There is no excuse for not having at least paused accepting money. Assuming the best about their intentions

I don't need to look at the finer nuances of the the thread, there are plenty of very clear statements which are incorrect. I have just counted 11 posts after the insurance companies press release was posted stating that they weren't insured, including:

"They are very lucky indeed the insurers decided to pay out. There was no contract to do so"

Specialsubject today 12.27

" Just because the insurance company have decided to pay doesn't mean the policy was valid."

Today 13:07definiteissues

"Well no I won't take back what I said because they still had invalid insurance!"
Today 13:22milkmilklemonade12

"It sounds from that as if the mother is not insured so will have to pay costs for child birth etc, but that the babies stay in SCBU is covered?"

Today 19:34ItsAllGoingToBeFine

That is what I am referring to.

That may be what you're referring to, but you're still missing the point many others are making. Can't be arsed to spell it out again but libraries covered it at 21.57 I think.

"Just because the insurance company have decided to pay doesn't mean the policy was valid."
This statement isn't incorrect. I spent a good deal of the last few weeks trying to get a claim paid because I believed the Insured made a genuine mistake regarding a policy condition and that that mistake wasn't material; it does happen. Didn't fly though.

"Well no I won't take back what I said because they still had invalid insurance!"
I think what Milk means (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth!) is that they had inadequate cover. Which they did. If I have a Rolex worth £15,000 and insure it for £5,000 then I have cover but that cover is inadequate. Obviously that is different to Travel Insurance but you get my meaning. If she had gone into spontaneous labour without the food poisoning after the 29 week point she would find herself in a very different position. And she was at high risk of that happening.

"It sounds from that as if the mother is not insured so will have to pay costs for child birth etc, but that the babies stay in SCBU is covered?"
Again, not that far from the case; the point is that the food poisoning seems to have been the causation here. If she had gone into labour without that then this statement would have been correct. And, again, she was at very high risk of that happening.

What also really fucks me off is, instead of waiting until there was an answer from Insurers their first impulse was setting up a GFM page. They were apparently in contact with them, Insurers have said there was no indication that they weren't going to pay- OK, they can be slow and cagey when there's complications (pre-existing conditions, questions over what caused the labour, etc.) this can be really stressful. But you know what you do? Explore all routes with them, speak to whoever you need to, have your family at home onto them, threaten the press to get them to state their position. Only then should you consider asking people you've never met (children even, from those comments on FB) to give up their hard earned money. The timescales thing seems to have been embellished and as " all calls are recorded" I doubt they'd deny saying that even if it had been implied.

Jesus Christ I give up. What a waste of time

With over 70 thousand pounds to manage is dealt with correctly on behalf of some very giving people.

I wouldn't want that responsibility.

Actually it's now nearly £73,000 Jeffs

Jeffrey.

You just don't know that. They have said on the Facebook page that they will be donating all the money to the two hospitals. If they go on to do that then no one can say that they were acting dishonestly.

I wish they would stop collecting money though. I also think the Facebook page should make it clear that there is no need for people to donate now. There are still links on the Facebook page to the Go Fund Me page - that seems a bit .

If they really wanted to do the right thing then they should offer to give people their money back and then they should make it crystal clear exactly how much they have donated to the public hospital in DR and to the UK hospital. They want to avoid the cageyness of Dax's parents. If they did this then there would be nothing for them to feel embarrassed about.

This is why I don't donate to things like this until its crystal clear what the insurer is willing or not willing to pay. Its another Dax all over again and people will eventually say they don't care and happy to give money to cover bills and that the couple can spend it on whatever they like.

My question to those people would be if that is the case why not go and donate some money to all the other GFM pages that are honestly asking for money to cover things like a new boiler because they cannot afford it? If you are so happy to donate money for people to use because they are struggling and need it then they shouldn't have a problem doing it. However, they wouldn't in reality so its all a bit of a sham in the way they are happy to suddenly allow the couple to keep the money for whatever.

According to what the insurance company said they were always covered

So why did they start the page? To get money that's why

Dax's parents kept the lot didn't they, the hospital confirmed not one penny was handed over?

"What also really fucks me off is, instead of waiting until there was an answer from Insurers their first impulse was setting up a GFM page."

What is wrong with you people?!!

First impulse? Hardly. So why are you saying that?

They set up the GFM page after (info from the GFM page)

• On the 27th Sep being taken into hospital paying $3555 thinking it would be covered by the insurance

• Transferred to another hospital as the mother was advised she may need a C-Section. The new hospital demanded $10,000 upfront which they paid.

• She went into labour at the hospital and baby Evie was born naturally but very premature

• The new hospital then asked for another $5000 and said the care was costing $2,500 a day. They did not have any more money

• Throughout this they were in contact with the insurance company but no money was forthcoming

• They were only allowed to see their baby for between 10 minutes and an hour twice a day and were staying in a guest house an hour's walk away.

• The hospital harassed them for money. But they had no more to give and the insurance had not paid out. On 2nd October the baby was discharged from the private hospital and sent to one with appalling conditions instead. The mother wrote:

"I was not prepared for what it was going to be like. The sanitation and level of care is next to nothing, she was placed in dirty incubator lined up next to other sick new born babies (15 plus in room). The equipment was old and even the blanket she laid on was stained and ripped. Only the mother can visit for half an hour so Daniel was unable to see her. No one spoke English so I was left feeling very alone and unsure. I cried through the whole visit as I felt I had let her down and any progress she had made I had stamped on.

I was then ushered into a nursing room where the mother’s sit and express milk. A lady proceeded to show me how to use their electric pumps, she then washed the pump and the bottles under the tap and stored back away. She did not use sterile water nor sterilise the items. All the mothers use them."

It was after this they started a gofundme.

Their baby was at serious risk in that hospital (as sadly are all the other babies there).

I wouldn't call that "in the first instance", why on earth would you? The family had been through a significant ordeal before they got to that point, and if the baby had been transferred out of the private hospital into a risky place the need was urgent, to save the life of her premature baby

Why are you all so quick to forget about the baby at the heart of this story?

Why are you so gleeful in attacking the parents in a story when you still do
not know the whole story.

This thread is absolutely shameful.

"According to what the insurance company said they were always covered"

So where was the money? Why was the baby transferred to a hell hole?

Get a grip.
FFS.

If they were covered the whole time, then the insurance company has serious questions to answer as to why a premature baby's life was put at risk by them dragging their feet in paying, and why the mum in such an awful position got the impression they were not going to pay.