Policies, claims files, assessor reports and the correspondence around them, held together as one record per claim.
A claim is not one document. It is a dozen, arriving separately, from people who never speak to each other.
Intake forms come in on paper, the assessor sends a report by email, the policy sits in a drive, and the decision gets made from whatever the reviewer managed to gather. These five stages assemble the file instead of leaving it to whoever is on duty.
Scanned and photographed pages are read on arrival in Nepali and English, so a claim form filled in by hand at a branch counter and captured on a phone enters as searchable text rather than as an image nobody can find again. Email is indexed alongside documents, and Google Drive, Dropbox and OneDrive connect directly so material already sitting in them does not have to be moved first.
Every arrival carries its category, document type and owner, so a policy schedule, an assessor report and a discharge voucher are distinguishable without opening them. Dates, reference numbers and parties are extracted from the document as it arrives, which is what lets a claim be found by the reference somebody quotes on the phone rather than by the filename it was saved under.
A reusable catalogue of people, vendors and assets means the claimant, the surveyor and the garage are recorded once and referenced everywhere, instead of being retyped four ways across four documents. Duplicate copies are caught on intake, so the same assessor report emailed to three people does not become three versions of the file.
Review runs as defined stages with named owners and deadlines, and reminders go out automatically when a stage is overdue rather than when someone remembers to chase it. Where a settlement needs more than one signature, an approval can require several named people, and a case closed or rejected in error can be reopened rather than started again.
Every action sits in a tamper-evident history, so what was decided, by whom and in what order can be reconstructed rather than recalled. Ask for a summary of a claim file or a comparison between two documents and every answer cites the document and the line it came from, which is the difference between an answer and an assertion.
None of these are decision problems. Someone would have decided in an afternoon; the delay came from assembling the file well enough to decide from.
The date exists, in a schedule filed the day the policy was issued and not looked at since. Because dates are extracted from documents as they arrive, the renewal is a field on the record rather than a line on page four of a PDF.
Their reports were attachments on their mailbox and their reasoning was in the thread underneath. With email indexed alongside documents and shared organisation mailboxes readable by administrators, the file survives the person who assembled it.
Someone asks, months afterwards, what the file looked like at the moment it was approved and who signed off on it. The tamper-evident history holds the approval stages, their named owners and the order things happened in, so the answer is retrieved rather than reconstructed from memory.
An endorsement changed the cover partway through the year, and the question is which wording was in force on the date of loss. Documents carry draft, active and superseded status, so the older version stays part of the record instead of being tidied away as an out-of-date copy.
Different desks, different jobs — from claims intake to the person who has to justify a settlement months later.
Claims
Read an intake form captured on a phone at the client’s premises and file it against the policy it belongs to.
Underwriting
Compare the schedule that was in force on the date of loss against the one current today.
Claims review
Route the decision through a stage that needs several named approvers rather than whichever one responds first.
Renewals
Filter on the renewal dates extracted from the documents instead of reading schedules one at a time.
Legal
Gather the assessor report, the correspondence and the approval record together, each traceable to its source.
Operations
Pick the file up with its summary and its history rather than the notes that left with them.
Yes. Scanned and photographed pages are read automatically on arrival, in Nepali and English, so a form captured at a branch counter enters as searchable text rather than as an image. The one limit worth knowing before you plan around it: handwriting is not supported, so a printed form filled in by hand gives you the printed part.
Email is indexed alongside documents, including shared organisation mailboxes readable by administrators. That matters because the reasoning behind a claim decision is usually in a thread rather than in a document, and a file holding only the formal paperwork is missing the part someone will ask about later.
Yes. An approval stage can require several named people rather than any one of a group, and each stage carries its own owner and deadline with automatic reminders when it is overdue. The names and the order are recorded in the tamper-evident history along with everything else.
It is reopened rather than recreated. Closed and rejected cases can be reopened, so the original file, its approval stages and its history stay attached instead of a second case appearing beside the first with no explanation of how they relate.
Documents carry draft, active and superseded status, so an endorsement replacing an earlier wording does not remove that wording from the record — the superseded version is retained as the account of what applied at the time. You can also ask for a comparison between two documents, and the answer cites the document and the line each point came from.
Yes. Each organisation’s records are stored fully separated from every other organisation’s. Inside your own organisation, documents stay private to whoever added them until deliberately shared, with separate view, edit and approve rights, and search results respect those rights so a restricted claim never surfaces as a title.
Yes, and it is worth naming. Retention rules applied by document type rather than by folder, and access review reporting for auditors, are being built and are not available today. Retention is handled through document status and access control in the meantime, so if a fixed schedule is a hard requirement, raise it early and we will be straight about the timeline.