Saeedi v Cover-More Insurance Services Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 168

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Saeedi v Cover-More Insurance Services Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 168 Hearing dates: 31 May 2021 Date of orders: 09 June 2021 Decision date: 09 June 2021 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: Cowdroy AO QC ADCJ, Principal Member P Molony, Senior Member Decision: The Appeal Panel orders that the appeal be dismissed. Catchwords: APPEALS — insurance — claim by policyholder under travel insurance policy — whether policyholder complied with conditions of policy to receive benefit for extra cost of accommodation and lump sum benefit for permanent disability – no evidence of additional costs incurred — no evidence of permanent disability Legislation Cited: Nil Cases Cited: Nil Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Habib Saeedi (Appellant) Cover-More Insurance Services Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Appellant (self-represented) Respondent (self-represented) File Number(s): 2020/00371138 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Citation: Not reported Date of Decision: 06 October 2020 Before: S Hennings, General Member File Number(s): GEN 20/17245

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. By Notice of Appeal filed on 26 October 2020, the appellant seeks to appeal the decision of the Tribunal made on 6 October 2020, which dismissed his claim for benefits under a travel insurance policy issued by the respondent. 2. The Notice of Appeal does not claim that there is any appellable error in the decision of the Tribunal. However, during the course of the hearing of the appeal, which took place by telephone, the appellant identified his claims. The appellant claimed that there was a "cover up" and bias in relation to the denial of his entitlement under the insurance policy to compensation for certain accommodation costs and an injury sustained while visiting the United Kingdom. When clarification was sought as to the claim of bias the appellant stated: "Biased because it is supporting the business people not the consumers"