For people with medical conditions getting cheap or even fairly priced travel insurance is a herculean task. And millions of people are affected by this problem, which campaigners like Karma Insurance managing director, Brian Wright, describe as discriminatory.

Truly, by being made to pay higher premiums for the same policies offered to other people at a lower cost is anything but fair. This is even more so if the basis for such differential treatment is medical condition.

But the predicament of insurers also needs to be understood. In recent weeks, as the news continued to circulate that they have been discriminating against people with medical conditions, they have tried to deny the allegation. The Association of British Insurers (ABI), which rose staunchly in defence of its members, insisted that they only try to assess risks by wanting to know customers medical history.

In spite of the explanation, the allegation has remained a burning issue, even worthy of the British government’s intervention to outlaw this and several other forms discriminatory practices.

In Britain diabetics are among people with pre-existing conditions that feel gravely wronged by travel insurers. And two million people with this medical condition claim they are being overcharged travel insurance premiums for no other reason than their health.

While reports said there is ample evidence to substantiate their claims of discrimination, many said to have received outrageously expensive quotes from insurers.

A rough estimate of what they pay in unnecessary premiums to companies on a yearly basis was put at about £185 million by experts. This clearly, according to experts and campaigners, suggests a case of rip-off.

One of those campaigning for a change of attitude towards diabetics, however, is Mr Wright. And as a gesture that would encourage a better treatment, he said was happy to insure diabetic customers without the need for applicants to undergo a medical screening.

This decision stems from his conviction that diabetics have suffered enough unfair treatment from insurers, some of whom he said were running a scam.

“People with pre-existing conditions are more aware of their own bodies and how to look after them than the average person on the street, so why should they be penalised?” he queried.

He said that in most cases their conditions were under control and posed not threat, but they often had to endure a lengthy and intrusive medical screening process and made to pay higher premiums. Brian Wright went on to suggest that the insurance industry is violating the Disability Discrimination Act.

However, the trouble with this accusation is that insurers do not believe it is entirely the fact that their members are to blame. Yet the evidence on ground suggests so. But as a way forward insurers need to investigate the allegations themselves and make amendments where necessary.

As much as they are in the business to make profit, there is the responsibility of fairness owed the society. People with pre-existing conditions, even where the risks require differential treatment, should not be made to feel sorry for what is not as a result of their own making.