SURAT– In an important ruling for digital privacy, a consumer court has ordered an insurance company to pay a mediclaim that was initially denied based on the claimant’s Google Maps Timeline. The decision emphasizes growing concerns about how personal location data is accessed and used by private entities, particularly in sensitive matters like health insurance.
The Unexpected Denial
Vallabh Motka, a resident of Silvassa, had purchased a mediclaim policy worth ₹6.52 lakh from Go Digit General Insurance. After being admitted to Arham Hospital in Silvassa for viral pneumonia from September 11 to 14, 2024, he submitted a claim for ₹48,251. Despite providing all necessary hospitalization documents and adhering to policy guidelines, the insurance company rejected his claim. The insurer’s repudiation letter cited discrepancies, including those related to his Google Timeline location, suggesting that his presence at the hospital was not recorded by the digital service during his admission dates.
A Fight for Justice
Facing the unexpected denial, Mr. Motka approached the consumer forum in March 2025 after his attempts to persuade the company to reconsider proved futile. His advocate, A.N. Desai, presented the treating doctor’s certificate, arguing that Mr. Motka’s treatment was conducted strictly under medical supervision. The core of the argument against the insurer’s stance was the assertion that a digital location record should not supersede authenticated medical documentation and professional medical oversight.
Commission’s Decisive Ruling
The Valsad Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRC) sided with Mr. Motka, ordering Go Digit General Insurance to reimburse the ₹48,251 mediclaim and provide additional compensation for mental harassment. In its order, the commission stated that the insurance company had presented “incorrect information” regarding the patient’s Google Timeline. The investigation report submitted to the court confirmed that Mr. Motka was indeed treated as an indoor patient, and the discrepancy cited in the Google Timeline was “wrongly cited.” The commission concluded that the insurer failed to take the doctor’s certificate into account, likely with the intent to reject the claim.
Digital Footprints and Privacy Concerns
Advocate Desai highlighted the alarming practice of some insurance investigators who “mislead patients and gain access to their phones to stealthily review their Google Timeline data.” He emphasized that such an act is illegal, as investigators lack the authority to check a person’s private details. Furthermore, Mr. Desai pointed out that a patient’s location settings might be turned off, or they could face network issues, leading to incomplete or inaccurate timeline data. Crucially, he asserted that unless Google officials officially verify the data in court, the Google Timeline holds no legal validity as evidence.