Home/ Insights/ Cancer Claim Court Case
Case Study

Cancer Claim Rejected for Non-Disclosure: Why the High Court Reinstated the Policy

By CASB Advisory Team · August 3, 2026 · 6 min read

The Case in Brief

In June 2026, Malaysian news reports described a Kuala Lumpur High Court decision involving a woman whose cancer-related insurance benefits had been rejected after an insurer alleged that information was not fully disclosed when the policy was purchased.

The policyholder, identified in the report as Tan Hong Feng, had obtained life and medical insurance in 2021. She was diagnosed in June 2023 with endometrioid adenocarcinoma, a form of uterine cancer, together with uterine fibroids. A hospital Guarantee Letter request prompted a review of the application and earlier medical information.

Why this case matters: it shows that an omitted answer can be serious, but an omission is not automatically proof of deliberate fraud. The facts, application process, evidence and applicable law still matter.

Why the Claim Was Disputed

According to the published report, the health declaration did not fully record several matters. These included cancer in the policyholder's family and her own history of mild anaemia, trigeminal neuralgia and benign uterine fibroids diagnosed in 2019.

The insurer alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, proposed additional premium and exclusions, and eventually treated the rider as void from inception. Those were the insurer's positions in the dispute—not findings that the policyholder had committed fraud.

What the High Court Reportedly Found

The High Court found that the evidence did not establish deliberate concealment, fraud or reckless misrepresentation. The reported judgment attributed the omissions to communication failures and mistakes during the application process.

The application had been completed by the insurance agent for the couple. The report states that the questions were not individually explained, some medical information had been communicated, and the agent did not know how to record the relevant conditions properly. The policyholders also relied on the agent and did not carefully review every answer before signing.

Important: the outcome does not mean applicants may leave health questions unanswered. It turned on the evidence in this particular case. Applicants should disclose accurately and check the final application themselves.

The Court's Orders

As reported, the Court ordered the original policy reinstated and awarded:

The claim for emotional-distress damages was dismissed. The article does not identify the insurer, and CASB does not infer or speculate about its identity.

What Malaysian Law Adds to the Story

Section 129 of Malaysia's Financial Services Act 2013 points to Schedule 9 for the pre-contractual duty of disclosure, representations and an insurer's remedies for misrepresentation.

The remedies can depend on matters such as whether a contract is a consumer insurance contract and whether a misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless, careless, or innocent. Life policies also have specific provisions once they have been in force for more than two years. Applying those provisions to a real dispute requires the complete policy, application, medical evidence and legal advice.

Do not reduce the judgment to a slogan: “the agent filled the form” does not remove the applicant's responsibility, and “something was omitted” does not by itself prove fraud.

Five Lessons for Policyholders

1. Answer the Exact Question Fully

Disclose what is asked even if a condition seemed minor, benign, resolved or unrelated to the later claim. Let the insurer assess materiality.

2. Never Treat the Signature as a Formality

Read every declaration before signing or approving an electronic application. Correct incomplete answers in writing and retain confirmation.

3. Keep Evidence of What Was Discussed

Save the submitted application, health declaration, messages, medical reports, amendments and policy schedule. A contemporaneous record can become important years later.

4. Ask Direct Questions After Any Policy Amendment

If an exclusion, loading or revised term is proposed, ask in writing what remains covered, when the change takes effect and whether it affects an existing claim.

5. Challenge a Decision with Evidence

Request the exact questions, answers, medical records and policy provisions relied upon. Build a timeline and use the insurer's formal complaint process. If unresolved, check the current Bank Negara Malaysia eLINK complaint channel.

What Advisers Should Learn

An adviser facilitates the application. The insurer underwrites it, while the applicant remains responsible for checking that the information submitted is accurate.

Sources and Reporting Note

The case facts and reported outcome are based on SAYS' 16 June 2026 report, which attributes the court details to China Press and the judgment. The statutory context comes from the Financial Services Act 2013. Complaint-channel information comes from Bank Negara Malaysia.

This is an educational summary of a reported High Court decision, not the complete grounds of judgment. It should not be treated as a prediction of how another claim or dispute would be decided.

Before You Submit—or Challenge—a Claim

CASB advisers can help you organise your application, policy and claim records and understand the insurer's stated process. We cannot guarantee a claim outcome or provide legal representation.

Disclaimer: This article summarises a publicly reported court decision for general education. It is not the complete judgment and does not constitute legal, medical, financial or insurance advice. Every application and claim depends on its own facts, evidence, policy wording and current law.