The returned-documents letter: fixing a draft before 1,240 policyholders read it
Your regional office in Nagpur must send a status letter to 1,240 health-insurance policyholders whose claim documents were returned on 12 August because the hospital's final bill was missing. The zonal head's draft contains four sentences: (i) 'Having received the documents after 30 days, the claim cannot be processed.' (ii) 'The policyholder should contact the hospital and they should resend the bill.' (iii) 'We regret to inform that you failed to send the complete set of papers and hence no action lies.' (iv) 'It is regretted that the deficiency, if any, is being looked into.' You have 160 characters for an SMS and 120 words for a letter, which must be issued in English and Marathi. Thirty-eight policyholders have no valid mobile number on record. Two have emailed that the delay was caused by the hospital's billing desk, not by them, and one has threatened to approach the Insurance Ombudsman. The zonal head wants the letter out by 5 p.m. today.
1. Identify the grammatical or drafting fault in sentences (i), (ii) and (iii), and rewrite each so that the meaning is complete and no blame is assigned that the facts do not support.
Read the worked answer
(i) Fault: dangling participle plus an unverified fact. 'Having received' is meant to describe the policyholder or the office, but the subject of the main clause is 'the claim', so the sentence literally says the claim received the documents. The 30-day lateness is also not established: documents were returned on 12 August for a missing bill, which is not the same as a late submission. Rewrite: 'Your claim is held open because the hospital's final bill was not part of your submission. We received the remaining papers on 12 August.'
(ii) Fault: ambiguous pronoun and weak double modal. 'They' could be the policyholder or the hospital, and the reader cannot tell which. Rewrite: 'Please ask the hospital's billing desk to email the final bill to claims.nagpur@[domain], quoting your claim number; you do not need to re-submit the other papers.'
(iii) Fault: register and false finality. 'No action lies' is legal drafting aimed at the customer's own staff, and 'regret... you failed' apologises and accuses in one breath. It also announces a rejection that has not been decided. Rewrite: 'We are sorry the papers reached us incomplete. The claim stays open and will be assessed as soon as the bill is received.'
Reasoning to carry into the exam: fix the subject, name the actor, date the event, and separate sympathy from liability.
2. Sentence (iv) implies that an enquiry is under way. Decide whether to keep, change or drop it, and state what must be verified before any timeline is promised to a customer.
Read the worked answer
Drop it, or replace it with a factual holding line. Nothing in the file shows an enquiry exists; sentence (iv) is a passive construction used to sound responsive while promising nothing. If a customer later quotes it before the Ombudsman, the office must either produce an enquiry record or explain why the sentence was sent. For 1,240 recipients with an Ombudsman threat already live, that is avoidable risk.
Before any timeline is written, verify four things at claim level: (a) the exact date the incomplete set was received and the date the final bill arrived, with a scan attached; (b) whether the claim is 'documents pending' or already under assessment, because the two need different sentences; (c) whether a single named officer owns the file, so the letter can give a name and a desk number; (d) whether the policy is within the waiting period or subject to a specific exclusion, because promising settlement on a claim that will be partly rejected creates the bigger grievance.
Replacement line: 'Your claim number is [X]. A named officer will confirm in writing, within seven working days of receiving the bill, whether the claim is complete.' That is verifiable, dated and owned.
3. Recommend the channel mix for the 38 policyholders with no valid mobile number, and justify it using cost, proof of delivery and the Ombudsman risk.
Read the worked answer
Do not treat all 1,240 alike. An SMS is cheap and instant but has no proof of content beyond the gateway log, and 160 characters cannot carry the explanation - it should carry only the claim number, one instruction ('send the hospital bill to this email/desk') and a helpline. Sending the full reasoning by SMS guarantees a truncated, misread message.
For the 38 without a mobile number: print the bilingual letter, dispatch by registered or speed post, and keep the article numbers as the delivery record. A letter that can be proved to have reached the customer is worth more than fifty SMSes when a complaint is filed. Before dispatch, check whether email or the last known address in the policy record is usable, because the policyholder's address on the proposal form is the legally reliable one.
For the two email complainants, do not send the mass letter at all. Their point is that the delay was the hospital's, not theirs. Reply individually within 48 hours, acknowledge the bill desk issue, and ask for a one-line confirmation from the hospital. Keep those two replies, the gateway logs and the postal receipts together: this is the file the office will need if the Ombudsman complaint arrives. Escalate that pair to the claims head today, not at 5 p.m.