In September 2015 my elderly parents were on a Ryanair flight to Barcelona when my father had a heart attack. He was given life support and the pilot undertook an emergency landing in Toulouse. My father was taken to hospital where he was placed in a coma. Both Ryanair and the local paramedics and hospital went above and beyond what was expected.

The following day I travelled to Toulouse with my partner and brother, and my sister came from Spain. On arriving at the hospital my partner contacted the emergency helpline of my parents’ travel insurer, InsureforAll, to notify it of the situation. It advised that before it could cover any costs/expenses/claims it would need a medical report from my father’s GP, and that we would have to complete the necessary paperwork.

My father passed away six days later and we had to make arrangements for his repatriation to the UK. During this time I found the insurance company obstructive, rude and unhelpful. It maintained it was not responsible for the claim until we could prove that the heart attack was not linked to any underlying condition my father had. We had to find a printer and scanner in Toulouse to do this. We felt the process was made as difficult as possible.

My father’s body was left in the hospital morgue and we were in limbo as, at that stage, the company was unwilling to fund the repatriation. It even suggested “we just pay for it and claim it back”.

After five days it eventually agreed that the heart attack was not the result of an underlying condition and that it would arrange the repatriation.

After the funeral I submitted a formal complaint to InsureforAll in respect of how our case had been handled, together with a claim for our expenses as covered by the policy.

The company failed to respond. When it eventually did get in contact it dismissed the complaint saying that the requirement to have a GP report is standard. I asked them to advise where in the policy documentation it sets out this process, but it has not.

We are in a fortunate position that we could afford to cover the immediate costs of the accommodation, etc.

The company appears to be adding conditions and requirements to the process that are not documented in our policy. I understand they need to check the insured person’s medical history, but to leave a family in limbo in a foreign country like this seems to me to be unacceptable.

KS, London

InsureforAll specialises in providing travel cover for the over-50s and for those with pre-existing medical conditions and, on this basis, you’d think it would be well used to dealing with this type of emergency. On its website it says: “Our aim is to give you peace of mind when you travel.”

However, you and your family report a chaotic claims system and a lack of a sympathetic response at a very difficult time. The way it made you jump through multiple hoops to get your father’s medical records before it would confirm cover was insensitive, to say the least. What would you have done had you been in a remote spot? In short, you feel the company let you down when you most needed it.

Having been through the details we are inclined to agree, but suspect you would have received a similar experience from many other online travel insurers that vie for travellers’ business. But the fact the firm ignored your complaint and claim when you got home only added to your sense that this insurer was happy to take the premium, but far less interested in helping you.

A spokeswoman for InsureforAll admitted that mistakes had been made, but said procedural changes introduced since last September should prevent other families having to go through this again. She said all insurers will need to see evidence that the claim was not the result of a previous condition. It has now offered to cover the cost of two family members travelling to Toulouse, rather than the one allowed in the policy.

It has also offered you a £1,600 payout, considerably less than what you have claimed, but more than it says it has to pay. If it agrees to apologise – and it still hasn’t – we’d be inclined to take the money and try to move on.

Meanwhile, this case suggests it may well be worth leaving someone back in the UK to deal with any claim – to liaise with doctors etc – rather than all rushing to the hospital bed. Which, of course, is easier to write than enact.

We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@theguardian.com or write to Consumer Champions, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number