I never claimed it was in bad faith and I don't think it was. Considering incentives and conflicts of interest is perfectly normal and does not mean that someone is operating in bad faith.
I just claim that it's reasonable for the company not to take it at face value as the doctor is not impartial and may have been considering a different standard for "not fit to fly." I certainly do not take it at face value. Could he have been put on a plane with extra medical assistance, for example? That may still have been cheaper than surgery.
I think what the guy did was the best choice if he can afford it, but I also think it's not unreasonable from the company to say that it was not what travel insurance covers.
I just claim that it's reasonable for the company not to take it at face value as the doctor is not impartial and may have been considering a different standard for "not fit to fly." I certainly do not take it at face value. Could he have been put on a plane with extra medical assistance, for example? That may still have been cheaper than surgery.
I think what the guy did was the best choice if he can afford it, but I also think it's not unreasonable from the company to say that it was not what travel insurance covers.