Mediclaim Rejected Over Google Timeline Discrepancy, Consumer Forum Orders Insurer to Settle
Mediclaim Rejected Over Google Timeline Discrepancy, Consumer Forum Orders Insurer to Settle
Gujarat resident wins relief after insurer cited location mismatch to deny hospitalisation claim
In a case highlighting the growing role of digital footprints in claim investigations—and the limits of such reliance, a consumer forum in Gujarat has ordered Go Digit General Insurance Limited to honour a mediclaim that was initially rejected based on data from Google Timeline.
Vallabh Matka, a resident of Silvassa, had filed for reimbursement under his mediclaim policy after being hospitalised for four days in September 2024 due to viral pneumonia. Despite submitting all necessary medical bills and documents, the insurer rejected his claim, citing a mismatch between his reported hospital stay and the location data recorded on his Google Timeline.
Google Timeline, formerly known as Location History, tracks the movement of a user’s device and can generate a detailed map of places visited. The insurance company argued that the patient’s phone, claimed to be with him during hospitalisation did not reflect the hospital’s location during the treatment period.
Facing denial of a claim worth ₹48,251, Matka took the matter to the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum in Valsad. The forum, a quasi-judicial authority, reviewed the hospital’s official statement and medical records. It found no irregularities in the treatment or billing and criticised the insurer for using “Google Timeline” as a pretext to deny the claim.
“The patient was admitted to the hospital and received treatment. It seems the insurer wanted to reject the claim on baseless grounds using the excuse of a timeline mismatch,” said the forum in its ruling. It noted that the insurer had itself admitted the patient had undergone treatment at the listed hospital.
In a verdict dated July 14, Consumer Forum President B.G. Dave directed the insurer to settle the full claim amount along with 8% annual interest, to be paid within 30 days of the order. The ruling underlines that digital evidence such as location data, cannot override official medical documentation in determining the legitimacy of insurance claims.
The case serves as a precedent and a caution to insurers relying heavily on digital trails in assessing claims, especially when official medical records confirm treatment. It also offers reassurance to policyholders that legal redress is possible when claims are rejected on questionable grounds.
