To determine the maximum combined claim amount, one must first identify the relevant benefits and their calculation methods under the specified policy plan. The scenario involves a claim under Plan B of the Packaged Household Insurance. The total sum insured for ‘Home Contents & Renovations’ under Plan B is the sum of the Home Contents limit (S$90,000) and the Renovations limit (S$125,000), which equals S$215,000. The ‘Alternative Accommodation’ benefit is capped at 5% of this total sum, calculating to 0.05 * S$215,000 = S$10,750. Similarly, the ‘Removal of Debris’ benefit is also capped at 5% of the same total sum, which is another S$10,750. The ‘Replacement of Locks/Keys’ benefit under Plan B is a fixed amount of S$1,250. The total maximum claimable amount is the sum of these individual benefits: S$10,750 (Accommodation) + S$10,750 (Debris) + S$1,250 (Locks) = S$22,750.

Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, an employer who signs a Security Bond for a foreign worker undertakes several key responsibilities. Condition (i) of the bond explicitly states that the employer is responsible for the prompt payment of salary and must bear the full cost of the worker’s repatriation, ensuring all outstanding monies are paid before repatriation. Condition (vii) further mandates that upon termination of employment, the employer must inform the Controller of Work Passes and repatriate the worker. Therefore, settling all financial obligations and arranging for the worker’s return to their home country at the employer’s expense are the primary duties. Simply informing the authorities is an administrative requirement but does not fulfill the core responsibility towards the worker. Deducting repatriation costs from the final salary is a direct violation of the bond’s condition to ‘bear the full cost’. The employer’s obligation is repatriation, not finding alternative employment for the worker in Singapore.

The correct answer is based on the specific conditions outlined in the No Claim Discount (NCD) Protection endorsement (M4). This endorsement explicitly states: ‘In the event that you fail to comply with Condition 5(a)(i) of this Policy, this No Claim Discount Protection does not protect your NCD from being reduced pursuant to Condition 10(iii) of this Policy.’ Condition 5(a)(i) typically refers to the policyholder’s duty to report any accident to the insurer promptly. By failing to report the accident, Mr. Lim has breached this condition. Consequently, the NCD Protection benefit becomes void for this claim. Without the protection, the standard NCD reduction rules for an at-fault claim apply. In the Singapore motor insurance industry, a single at-fault claim for a policyholder with a 50% NCD typically results in a 30-point reduction, bringing the NCD down to 20% upon renewal. The other options are incorrect because the NCD is not protected due to the breach, a reduction to 0% is generally for multiple claims, and while the insurer might take other actions, the direct impact on the NCD follows the standard reduction scale once the protection is nullified.

This question tests the candidate’s ability to interpret and apply multiple clauses from a motor insurance policy in a single incident. The claim involves two distinct components: own damage to the motorcycle (governed by Section I) and third-party property damage (governed by Section II). First, for the damage to the motorcycle, Section I, Clause 1(a) covers loss or damage caused by ‘accidental collision’. The damage to both the front fork and the tyre falls under this. A key point to note is Section I, Clause 3(c), which excludes ‘damage to tyres unless the Insured Vehicle suffers other damage at the same time’. Since the front fork was also damaged in the same incident, the exclusion does not apply, and the cost to repair the tyre is also covered. Second, the policy’s Excess must be considered. The Definition and Clause 3(f) of Section I state that the insured must bear the specified Excess for each claim under this section. As Mr. Tan is over 21 and has more than two years of driving experience, only the standard $300 Excess applies to his own damage claim. Third, for the damage to the lamppost, this is a claim for third-party property damage, covered under Section II, Clause 1(b). This section provides indemnity for legal liability for ‘damage to property up to a limit of $500,000’. The Excess, as defined and applied in Section I, is specific to claims for loss or damage to the insured vehicle and does not apply to third-party liability claims under Section II. Therefore, the insurer covers the lamppost damage in full (up to the limit) without an excess being applied to this part of the claim.

A Third-Party, Fire & Theft (TPFT) policy provides coverage for the insured’s legal liability towards third parties for bodily injury and property damage. This means that in the scenario, the damage to the other person’s car would be covered. However, for the insured’s own vehicle, a TPFT policy only covers loss or damage resulting specifically from fire or theft. It does not cover accidental damage, such as that sustained in a collision. Therefore, Mr. Lim would have to bear the full cost of repairing his own car. In contrast, a Comprehensive policy would cover accidental damage to his own vehicle, in addition to the third-party liabilities and fire/theft risks. The other options are incorrect because a TPFT policy does cover third-party property damage, it is not limited to only covering third-party injuries, and the non-coverage of collision damage is a fundamental exclusion, not a matter of a higher excess.

The total premium is calculated by determining the most appropriate insurance policies for the entire travelling party based on the eligibility criteria outlined in the application form and the corresponding premium rates. The travelling party consists of four individuals: Mr. and Mrs. Lim, their 19-year-old son, and Mrs. Lim’s 65-year-old mother. The trip is for 8 days to South Korea (Asia) under Plan A. First, we must determine who is eligible for the Family Plan. According to the application form’s definition, a Family Plan covers the insured adults and their accompanying children. A ‘child’ is defined as being unmarried, unemployed, and no older than 18 years, or up to 23 years if studying full-time. Mr. and Mrs. Lim’s 19-year-old son meets this criteria as a full-time student. However, Mrs. Lim’s 65-year-old mother is an adult and does not qualify as an ‘accompanying child’. Therefore, the correct insurance arrangement is: 1. One Family Plan for Mr. Lim, Mrs. Lim, and their 19-year-old son. 2. One separate Individual Plan for Mrs. Lim’s 65-year-old mother. Next, we find the premiums from the table for an 8-day trip (which falls into the ‘7 – 10 days’ category) to Asia under Plan A: – The premium for a Family Plan is S$265. – The premium for an Individual Plan is S$106. The total premium is the sum of these two policies: S$265 + S$106 = S$371. This arrangement ensures all four travellers are properly insured according to the policy terms. Purchasing four individual plans would be more expensive (4 x S$106 = S$424), and attempting to cover all four under a single Family Plan would be invalid as the grandmother is ineligible.

The primary role of an underwriter is to assess the potential risk presented by an applicant to determine the terms of coverage and the appropriate premium. In this scenario, the most significant factor is the property’s location in an area susceptible to storm surges. This represents a major, ongoing physical hazard that substantially increases the probability of significant property damage. According to underwriting principles outlined in the CMFAS PGI syllabus, the ‘Location of Risk’ is a critical consideration, especially when it exposes the property to higher-than-normal perils like flooding or storm surges. While a previous claim is relevant for assessing the proposer’s claims history (moral hazard), a permanent environmental threat to the specific property being insured is a more fundamental and impactful risk factor. The fact that the property is a concrete-built HDB flat is a mitigating factor (lower fire risk), not a primary concern. The proposer’s occupation is generally a secondary consideration for standard household insurance unless it directly increases the risk at the insured premises.

The insurer’s liability is determined by applying different clauses of the policy to each part of the incident. The damage to the motorcycle from the collision is a covered event under Section I(1)(a) ‘accidental collision’. The damage to the third-party’s mailbox is covered under Section II(1)(b) ‘damage to property’. However, the claim for the stolen helmet and GPS unit is likely to be rejected based on two key provisions. Firstly, Section I(3)(e) explicitly excludes loss of accessories or parts by theft unless the entire Insured Vehicle is stolen at the same time. Secondly, Condition 2, ‘Precautions’, obligates the insured to take all reasonable precautions to prevent further loss or damage after an accident. Leaving the motorcycle unattended and unlocked would be considered a failure to meet this condition, giving the insurer grounds to deny the claim for the subsequent theft. Therefore, the insurer would cover the initial accident and third-party damage (subject to any applicable excess) but not the consequential theft.

The core principle of property insurance is to provide cover for fortuitous events, which are sudden, accidental, and unforeseen. Most Packaged Household Insurance policies, which cover buildings and contents, contain specific exclusions for losses that occur gradually or are considered maintenance-related. Damage caused by vermin, insects (like termites), rot, fungus, or any form of gradual deterioration falls under this category of standard exclusions. The insurer’s position is that preventing such damage is part of the homeowner’s responsibility for regular upkeep and maintenance. Therefore, even if a policy is described as ‘comprehensive’, it will not cover this type of loss. The claim’s outcome is determined by the excluded peril (termite infestation), not by the insured’s maintenance history or the specific components that were damaged.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) requires employers of Foreign Domestic Workers (FDWs) to furnish a S$5,000 security bond as a guarantee that they will uphold their obligations and responsibilities under the Employment of Foreign Manpower (Work Passes) Regulations. Insurers offer a product, often called a ‘Letter of Guarantee to Immigration’, which covers this S$5,000 bond. When an employer purchases this, they must sign a counter-indemnity, promising to repay the insurer if the insurer is forced to pay the bond amount to the government due to a breach by the employer or the FDW. In the scenario, because the applicant (Mr. Evans) is a foreigner, the insurer requires a local guarantor (Mr. Tan) to co-sign the indemnity. By doing so, Mr. Tan becomes jointly and severally liable with Mr. Evans. This means that if the S$5,000 bond is forfeited and Mr. Evans fails to reimburse the insurer, ABC Insurance has the legal right to recover the full amount from Mr. Tan. This financial liability is the most significant obligation undertaken by the guarantor. The other options are incorrect as the guarantor’s liability is not limited to the premium, they do not become a secondary employer, and their role is not merely administrative but carries a substantial financial risk.

Under Section I (Insurance On The Motor Car), commonly known as the ‘Own Damage’ section of a standard Private Motor Car Insurance policy, there are specific provisions for replacing damaged parts. When a required part is not available from local stock and must be imported, the insurer’s liability is clearly defined. The policy covers the cost of the part based on the price listed in the manufacturer’s most recent catalogue or price list. In addition to the part’s cost, the insurer is also liable for the reasonable expenses incurred in transporting the part to the repair location, which includes freight charges and any applicable import duties. Finally, the reasonable cost of labour for fitting the new part is also covered. Therefore, the insurer’s liability encompasses the part’s price, the cost of bringing it in, and the cost of installation.

The calculation for the total claimable amount requires assessing each category of expense against the limits specified under Plan B. First, for the Accident Medical Reimbursement, Mr. Lim incurred S$6,500 in outpatient treatment costs. However, Plan B has a maximum limit of S$6,000 for this benefit, so the reimbursement is capped at S$6,000. Second, for the Traditional Chinese Medicine treatment, the cost was S$900, but the policy limit for this benefit across all plans is S$750. Therefore, the claimable amount is S$750. Third, the Mobility Aid and Ambulance Services benefit covers the S$300 for the ambulance and S$150 for the crutches, totaling S$450. This amount is well within the S$4,000 limit for Plan B. Summing up the claimable amounts from each category gives the total reimbursement: S$6,000 (Medical) + S$750 (TCM) + S$450 (Mobility/Ambulance) = S$7,200. This question assesses the candidate’s ability to interpret a policy’s schedule of benefits and apply multiple sub-limits correctly in a claims scenario, a key skill under the Personal General Insurance framework.

The total excess payable by the policyholder is calculated by summing all applicable excesses for the specific claim event. In this scenario, the claim is for damage to the policyholder’s own vehicle, which falls under Section I of a comprehensive motor policy. Three separate excesses apply cumulatively. First, the S$500 standard excess for own-damage claims is applicable to any such claim. Second, the S$3,000 Young and Inexperienced Driver Excess applies because the driver is 23 years old and has only one year of driving experience, fitting the criteria for this clause. Third, the S$1,500 Unnamed Driver Excess applies as the nephew was not explicitly named on the policy schedule. Motor insurance policies are structured such that these specific, risk-related excesses are applied in addition to the standard policy excess. Therefore, the total liability for the policyholder is the sum of all three: S$500 + S$3,000 + S$1,500 = S$5,000. The reduction of the No Claim Discount (NCD) is a separate consequence that affects the premium at the next renewal and is not part of the excess calculation for the current claim.

A detailed explanation of the correct answer is as follows: The most suitable strategy for insuring a collection with items of vastly different values is a combination approach. High-value items that exceed the per-item limit of a blanket policy should be insured individually using itemised coverage. In this scenario, the paintings valued at S$50,000 each are well above the S$10,000 per-item limit of the blanket coverage, so they must be listed separately to be fully protected. For collections of items with less substantial individual values, such as the silverware and stamps (where each piece is below the S$10,000 limit), blanket coverage is ideal. It provides an aggregate amount of coverage for the entire category of items, which is more efficient and cost-effective than listing each item individually. Relying solely on blanket coverage would lead to significant underinsurance for the paintings. Itemising every single piece would be administratively burdensome and unnecessary for the lower-value items. A standard Packaged Household Insurance policy is inadequate due to its own inner limits on valuables, which is the primary reason for purchasing a separate Valuable Articles policy.

The correct premium is determined by systematically identifying the correct parameters from the scenario and locating the corresponding value in the provided premium table. First, the travelling party consists of Mr. and Mrs. Tan and their 17-year-old son, which qualifies for a ‘Family’ plan as per the definition in the application form (‘children must be unmarried and unemployed and must be no older than 18 years of age’). Second, the destination is Tokyo, Japan, which falls under the ‘Asia’ geographical category, not ASEAN or Worldwide. Third, the duration of the trip is from June 1st to June 15th, inclusive, which totals 15 days. This falls into the ’15 – 22 days’ trip length category. Finally, the question specifies they want the most economical plan, which corresponds to ‘Plan C’. By cross-referencing ‘Family’ plan, ’15 – 22 days’ duration, and ‘Asia’ region for ‘Plan C’, the premium listed in the table is S$205. The other options represent common errors such as selecting the wrong plan type (Individual), the wrong geographical area (ASEAN), or the wrong benefit tier (Plan B). This question tests the ability to apply policy definitions and table data accurately, a key skill for insurance representatives governed by principles of fair dealing under MAS Notice on Fair Dealing.

The HDB Fire Insurance Scheme is a mandatory and fundamental policy for HDB flat owners with an outstanding HDB mortgage loan taken after 1 September 1994. Its primary purpose is to cover the cost of reinstating the flat to its original state as constructed by the HDB. This includes the structural components like walls, columns, and floors, as well as the standard fixtures and fittings originally provided by HDB. The policy explicitly excludes any renovations, additions, or improvements made by the flat owner, past or present. It also does not cover household contents, which are considered personal moveable property. Therefore, custom-built kitchen cabinets, added air-conditioning systems, and personal belongings are not covered. The policy is designed to protect the financial institution’s (HDB’s) interest by ensuring the property can be restored, and it does not extend to cover consequential losses such as the loss of rental income or the cost of alternative accommodation, which would require a more comprehensive packaged household policy.

A standard Private Motorcycle Insurance policy, as outlined in the CMFAS PGI syllabus, contains a ‘Limitation of Use’ clause. This clause explicitly restricts the use of the motorcycle to social, domestic, pleasure purposes, and for the insured’s business. It specifically excludes use for hire or reward, which includes activities like food delivery services. When Ken used his motorcycle for a paid delivery, he breached this fundamental policy condition. As a result, the insurance cover is suspended during such use. The insurer is therefore entitled to repudiate the claim for the third-party property damage, as the incident occurred while the vehicle was being used for a purpose not covered by the policy. The third-party liability limit is only applicable if the claim arises from an event that is covered under the policy terms.

The core principle at stake is the duty of Utmost Good Faith (Uberrima Fides), which is fundamental to all insurance contracts and is reinforced by the declaration section on the claim form. This duty requires the insured to be completely honest and to disclose all material facts. Intentionally concealing a relevant pre-existing medical condition constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation. According to the declaration on the provided form, making a ‘false or fraudulent statement’ allows the insurer to void the policy and forfeit all rights to recovery. This means the insurer can treat the contract as if it never existed and refuse to pay any part of the claim, not just the medical portion. The other options are incorrect because they represent remedies for less severe breaches or are simply not standard practice for fraud. Reducing the payout (contribution/average) or applying a penalty is more relevant to underinsurance or innocent non-disclosure, not deliberate fraud. Requiring proof of direct causality is secondary to the fact that the act of fraud itself is a fundamental breach of the contract’s terms.

The core of this question tests the understanding of specific exclusionary clauses that link different benefits within a travel insurance policy. The policy provides a ‘Hospital Visit Benefit’ if the insured is hospitalized for an extended period and a ‘Compassionate Visit Benefit’ in the event of the insured’s death. A critical provision, as outlined in the policy wording similar to that in Sections 8 and 9, explicitly states that a claim can be made under one of these sections for the same event, but not both. In the scenario, the severe illness and the subsequent death are considered a single continuous event. Since a claim under the Hospital Visit benefit was already approved and paid for the son’s travel, the policy’s exclusionary clause is triggered, preventing any further payment under the Compassionate Visit benefit for the same event. The other options are incorrect because they either wrongly separate the illness and death into distinct events, suggest a partial payment or offset not mentioned in the policy, or overlook the explicit ‘not both’ clause that governs the relationship between these two specific benefits.

The core principle tested here is the distinction between indemnity and benefit policies within a Personal Accident insurance contract. The Medical Expenses benefit operates on the principle of indemnity, meaning it is designed to reimburse the insured for the actual financial loss incurred, up to the policy limit. When an insured has more than one policy covering the same indemnity-based risk (double insurance), the principle of contribution applies. This means the insurers will share the cost of the claim proportionally, ensuring the insured is compensated for their loss but does not profit from it. In this scenario, the S$12,000 medical bill will be shared between the two insurers. In contrast, the Hospital Cash/Income benefit is a ‘benefit’ policy. It pays a pre-determined, fixed amount (e.g., S$150 per day) for a specified event (hospitalisation) regardless of the actual expenses. Since it is not a contract of indemnity, the principle of contribution does not apply. Therefore, the insured is entitled to claim the full daily benefit from each policy they hold. Mr. Tan can claim S$1,500 (10 days x S$150) from each insurer, for a total of S$3,000 in hospital cash benefits.

This question assesses the understanding of the insurer’s rights and the insured’s obligations during a claim settlement dispute, as outlined in standard Personal Liability Insurance policies. According to the principles governing these policies, the insurer has the right to take over and conduct the settlement of any claim. If the insurer determines that a claim can be settled for a certain amount, but the insured refuses to consent and insists on defending the claim, the insurer’s liability becomes limited. The insurer will only be responsible for paying up to the amount for which the claim could have been settled. Any additional legal costs or expenses incurred from the point of the insured’s refusal to settle are borne solely by the insured. This provision protects the insurer from incurring excessive costs due to an insured’s unreasonable refusal to accept a fair settlement. Therefore, the insurer’s obligation is capped at the proposed settlement amount, and they are not responsible for funding a legal battle that they advised against.

This question assesses the application of the Pairs & Sets Clause in conjunction with the Condition of Average under a Valuable Articles Insurance policy. The policy settles claims based on the market value at the time of loss. First, identify the extent of underinsurance. The sum insured is $20,000, while the market value is $25,000. Therefore, the property is insured for only 80% of its value ($20,000 / $25,000). Next, determine the value of the loss according to the Pairs & Sets Clause. This clause stipulates that the insurer will pay a proportionate part of the sum insured for the lost item. The loss is the value of the single stolen earring, which constituted 50% of the pair’s value. The market value of the lost item is therefore 50% of $25,000, which equals $12,500. Finally, apply the Condition of Average to this loss amount. The payable claim is calculated as (Sum Insured / Market Value) × Loss = ($20,000 / $25,000) × $12,500 = 0.8 × $12,500 = $10,000. The reduction in the remaining item’s value is a consequential loss and is not the primary basis for the claim calculation under this clause.

The explanation for this question is based on the application of specific sub-limits within the extensions to Section 8 (Building) of a standard Personal General Insurance policy. The policy provides extensions for Professional Fees and Removal of Debris, both of which are capped at 10% of the total sum insured for the Building section. In this scenario, the sum insured for the Building is S$750,000. Therefore, the maximum amount payable for each of these extensions is calculated as 10% of S$750,000, which equals S$75,000 per extension. For the Professional Fees, the incurred cost was S$80,000, but since this exceeds the S$75,000 limit, the insurer’s liability is capped at S$75,000. Similarly, for the Removal of Debris, the incurred cost was S$90,000, which also exceeds the S$75,000 limit, so the payable amount is capped at S$75,000. The total claimable amount is the sum of the payable amounts for each extension, which is S$75,000 (for fees) + S$75,000 (for debris), resulting in a total of S$150,000. The other options represent common misinterpretations, such as adding the full incurred costs or miscalculating the applicable limits.

The Child Companion benefit is specifically designed to cover the necessary and reasonable travel and accommodation costs for a relative or friend to travel to the overseas location to accompany the insured’s unattended children back to their home country. This situation arises when the insured parent is hospitalised and unable to care for them. The Hospital Visit benefit, while similar, is intended to cover the expenses for a relative to visit the hospitalised insured, not primarily to escort children. The Hospital Confinement Benefit provides a daily cash payout to the insured for each day of hospitalisation and does not cover travel expenses for others. The Additional Accommodation & Travel Expenses benefit covers the costs for the insured person to extend their stay for medical reasons, not for a relative to travel to the location.

This question assesses the understanding of a ‘Condition Precedent’ within an insurance contract, as specified in the ‘Alarm and Protections’ clause of the sample Valuable Articles Insurance policy. The policy explicitly states, ‘It is a condition precedent to the liability of the Company as regards burglary, housebreaking and theft that… the protections specified in The Schedule shall be put into full and effective operation at all times when the premises are left unattended’. A condition precedent is a critical term of the policy that must be strictly fulfilled by the insured for the insurer’s liability to apply for the specified risks. In this scenario, Mr. Chen’s failure to activate the alarm system is a direct breach of this condition. Therefore, the insurer is legally entitled to be discharged from all liability related to the theft, regardless of whether the oversight was intentional or if the alarm would have prevented the loss. The other options are incorrect because the breach of a condition precedent allows the insurer to repudiate the claim entirely, rather than simply reducing the payout or investigating the proximate cause after the fact. The existence of a maintenance contract is a separate condition and does not absolve the insured of the duty to use the alarm.

Based on the policy’s Extra Benefits, specifically the Renewal Bonus clause (3.1), the original Sum Insured for Death (Result A) and Permanent and Total Disablement (Result B) is increased by 10% upon each renewal, provided no claims have been made under specific benefits during the preceding policy year. The bonus is calculated on the original Sum Insured. Initial Sum Insured: $300,000. Bonus per year: 10% of $300,000 = $30,000. After the first year (no claims), the Sum Insured for the second year becomes: $300,000 + $30,000 = $330,000. After the second year (no claims), the Sum Insured for the third year becomes: $330,000 + $30,000 = $360,000. During the third policy year, Mr. Lee made a claim for Temporary Total Disablement (Result D1). According to clause 3.1(i), a claim under this benefit during the preceding Period of Insurance disqualifies the insured person from receiving the Renewal Bonus for the subsequent renewal. Therefore, the 10% increase is not applied for the fourth year. The policy does not state that accumulated bonuses are forfeited upon such a claim, only that the next increment is not granted. Thus, the Sum Insured for the fourth year remains at the level it was in the third year.

A fundamental condition in a standard motor insurance policy is that the policyholder must not admit liability, make an offer, or promise any payment without the insurer’s prior written consent. When a policyholder admits fault at the scene of an accident, they prejudice the insurer’s position. The insurer has the right, under the principle of subrogation, to take over the insured’s rights to defend against or negotiate a claim from a third party. An admission of liability undermines this right and can prevent the insurer from effectively investigating the circumstances and determining legal liability. This action constitutes a breach of a key policy condition, which can give the insurer grounds to refuse to indemnify the policyholder for the loss, meaning they may have to bear the costs of the third party’s damages themselves. While a claim may affect the No-Claim Discount (NCD), the admission itself does not automatically cause forfeiture; the forfeiture happens when a claim is paid out where the insurer cannot recover costs. The admission complicates, rather than simplifies, the process for the insurer. Finally, while reporting the accident is required under the GIA Motor Claims Framework, there is no specific requirement to report an admission of liability in that manner.

A standard Personal Liability Insurance policy contains a critical condition, often referred to as a ‘condition precedent’, which prohibits the insured from admitting liability, making any offer, promise, or payment without the insurer’s prior written consent. In this scenario, Mr. Lim’s immediate offer to cover his guest’s expenses constitutes an admission of liability and a promise of payment. This action breaches the policy condition. The purpose of this condition is to protect the insurer’s right to investigate the claim, negotiate a settlement, or defend the case in court without being prejudiced by the insured’s premature admissions. By admitting fault, Mr. Lim has potentially compromised the insurer’s ability to argue for a lower settlement or even deny liability (for instance, if the guest was also negligent). Therefore, the insurer has the right to repudiate (reject) the claim entirely due to this breach, as the observance of policy conditions is fundamental to the contract.

A Travel Insurance policy often includes several distinct benefits related to medical emergencies and death. The ‘Compassionate Visit’ benefit is specifically designed to cover the reasonable travel and accommodation costs for one relative or friend to travel to the overseas location in the event of the insured person’s death. Its purpose is to allow the relative to assist with the final arrangements, such as repatriation of the remains. In contrast, the ‘Hospital Visit’ benefit applies when the insured is alive but hospitalized for a prolonged period (e.g., more than five days), allowing a relative to visit them. ‘Emergency Medical Evacuation’ covers the cost of transporting the insured person to a location with adequate medical facilities when they are seriously ill or injured, not the travel of a relative after death. ‘Bereavement and Funeral Expenses’ is a benefit that provides a lump sum payment to cover the costs of cremation or funeral services, but it does not cover the travel and lodging expenses for a family member to manage these arrangements. Therefore, the most appropriate benefit for the described situation is the Compassionate Visit.

A Third-Party, Fire & Theft (TPFT) policy provides specific and limited coverage for the policyholder’s own vehicle. As the name implies, it extends a Third-Party Only policy to cover loss or damage to the insured’s car resulting directly from the perils of fire or theft. The scenario describes damage that appears to be an act of vandalism or malicious mischief. Since there is no evidence of fire or theft, this type of damage is not a covered peril under a standard TPFT policy. To have coverage for such accidental or malicious damage, the vehicle owner would need to have purchased a Comprehensive policy, which offers the broadest protection, including for events like vandalism. The TPFT policy would still cover the insured’s liability to third parties as mandated by the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act, but it would not respond to this specific claim for damage to his own car.