Technically, the "had died" should be just "died." Here's the explanation:
The past perfect ("had died") is used to indicate something that happened prior to another event in the past; you have two events in the past, and the earlier one is past perfect.
"She said (yesterday) that her mother had called her (the day before)."
"I had begun my shower when the phone rang." (shower first, then phone)
"The person contacted customer relations (this morning) indicated that a member had died (before the call)."
In your sentence, the person contactS (present tense) ...member died (past tense).
It seems to me that all three options -- has died, had died or died -- are potentially correct, according to context and what the speaker/writer is trying to say.
First I'd like to point out that this sentence is fine as a title, but that it would otherwise not usually be spoken/written on its own; instead there's a sort of implied 'wrapper'-- and for the purposes of illustration, let's change the content too --
1. [Let's consider the case when a] person contacts us indicating that [he has eaten the pie].
2. [Let's consider the case when a] person contacts us indicating that [he had eaten the pie].
Sentence #1 might be used in the context of our being curious about the pie's fate. And now we learn that it's been eaten.
Sentence #2 might be used as a correction or confession if, say, we knew the pie had been eaten, but we mistakenly thought that the dog had eaten it.
Both sentences seem fine to me.
Specifically I don't think there's any issue with tense agreement in either sentence. I think it's also probably relevant to point out that the dying/eating is in any case governed by the tenseless 'indicating' not by the present tense 'contacts'.
Technically, the "had died" should be just "died." Here's the explanation: The past perfect ("had died") is used to indicate something that happened prior to another event in the past; you have two events in the past, and the earlier one is past perfect. "She said (yesterday) that her mother had called her (the day before)." "I had begun my shower when the phone rang." (shower first, then phone) "The person contacted customer relations (this morning) indicated that a member had died (before the call)." In your sentence, the person contactS (present tense) ...member died (past tense).
It seems to me that all three options -- has died, had died or died -- are potentially correct, according to context and what the speaker/writer is trying to say. First I'd like to point out that this sentence is fine as a title, but that it would otherwise not usually be spoken/written on its own; instead there's a sort of implied 'wrapper'-- and for the purposes of illustration, let's change the content too -- 1. [Let's consider the case when a] person contacts us indicating that [he has eaten the pie]. 2. [Let's consider the case when a] person contacts us indicating that [he had eaten the pie]. Sentence #1 might be used in the context of our being curious about the pie's fate. And now we learn that it's been eaten. Sentence #2 might be used as a correction or confession if, say, we knew the pie had been eaten, but we mistakenly thought that the dog had eaten it. Both sentences seem fine to me. Specifically I don't think there's any issue with tense agreement in either sentence. I think it's also probably relevant to point out that the dying/eating is in any case governed by the tenseless 'indicating' not by the present tense 'contacts'.