Not upheld: claim declined - non-disclosure of pre-existing medical conditions at renewal complaint against Inter Partner Assistance SA
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6327896 of 2026-05-22T00:00:00+00:00. claim declined - non-disclosure of pre-existing medical conditions at renewal complaint against Inter Partner Assistance SA. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6327896 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-22T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Inter Partner Assistance SA |
| Product | travel insurance |
| Claim type | claim declined - non-disclosure of pre-existing medical conditions at renewal |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | IPA must refund the premium paid by Mr R and Ms U and add simple interest calculated using the time-weighted average of the Bank of England base rate plus one percentage point from the date of final response (1 September 2025) until settlement. IPA must provide notification of any income tax deducted and a certificate if requested. |
Summary
Mr R and Ms U complained that IPA unfairly declined a travel insurance claim for their child's illness abroad, citing non-disclosure of pre-existing medical conditions. IPA's April 2023 renewal email explicitly stated that cover would not apply if anyone had received medical treatment within the last two years, and the child had attended multiple GP appointments and received prescribed medications within that period. The ombudsman found that Mr R and Ms U failed to take reasonable care by not contacting IPA to declare these conditions, constituting a qualifying misrepresentation under CIDRA. Although IPA was entitled to void the policy and decline the claim, it must refund the premium paid plus interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied CIDRA principles to determine whether a qualifying misrepresentation had occurred. The key findings were: (1) IPA's renewal email clearly stated that medical treatment within the last two years must be declared; (2) the child had received multiple medical treatments and prescribed medications within the two-year period; (3) Mr R and Ms U failed to take reasonable care by not contacting IPA despite the clear information provided; (4) this constituted a careless misrepresentation; (5) IPA demonstrated it would not have entered into the contract had it been aware of the medical conditions; and (6) therefore IPA was entitled to void the policy and decline the claim under CIDRA, but must refund the premium with interest.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Inter Partner Assistance SA, all decisions | 1,640 | 41% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website