Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Many policyholders assume that paying a fixed premium each month guarantees continuous medical coverage. In reality, most modern medical insurance policies – especially investment-linked policies (“ILPs”) – do not operate this way. The misunderstanding arises from how these policies are structured and funded. This update explains the mechanics in simple terms.

1. The Policy Is Not Just “Insurance”
A medical insurance policy sold as an investment-linked plan actually consists of three separate components:

1. The Investment Account
This is the fund into which part of the premium is placed and invested.

2. The Insurance Charges
These are monthly charges deducted to pay for:

  • life insurance (if any), and
  • the medical rider (hospitalisation and surgery).

3. The Medical Benefits
These are the hospital and medical bills payable only if the policy remains in force.

Crucially, the medical benefits are not paid directly by the premium, but are funded by deductions from the investment account.

2. The Water Bucket Analogy (Investment Value)
Think of the investment value as a bucket of water.

  • Every month, the premium adds some water into the bucket.
  • Every month, insurance charges remove water from the bucket.

As long as water going in ≥ water coming out, the bucket stays full and the policy continues.

Once water coming out > water going in, the bucket empties. When the bucket is empty:

  • the policy lapses, and
  • medical coverage stops, regardless of how long premiums were previously paid.

3. The Engine Analogy (Medical Charges)
Now think of the medical rider as an engine that consumes fuel (money).
• When the insured person is young, the engine is small and fuel consumption is low.
• As age increases, especially after 65, the engine becomes much larger.
• After 70, the engine becomes extremely fuel-hungry.

This increase is exponential, not linear. For example:
• At age 60: the engine may consume RM300 – RM400 per month.
• At age 70+: the engine may consume RM1,200 – RM2,000 per month or more.

If the bucket is not large enough, it will be drained very quickly.

4. Why the Policy “Worked” for Many Years
Most policyholders believe: “I paid for many years, so the policy should last.” This belief is understandable – but incorrect.

The policy worked earlier because:
• charges were relatively low;
• the investment bucket was filling faster than it was draining.

The policy fails later because:
• charges rise exponentially with age;
• investment value is depleted faster than it can be replenished.

This outcome is structural, not accidental.

5. Why the Insurer Can Still Be Profitable
Policyholders often ask: “How can the insurer say my policy is depleted when the company reports profits and pays dividends?”

The answer is that these are separate pools of money:
• Shareholder profits and dividends belong to the insurer.
• Investment value inside the policy belongs to the policyholder.
• The insurer is not permitted to use shareholder profits to subsidise individual policy losses.

Thus, an insurer can be profitable while an individual policy becomes unsustainable.

6. The Critical Disclosure Issue
The legal and practical issue is not whether repricing is allowed, but whether the policyholder was clearly informed at the outset that:

  • medical charges increase exponentially with age;
  • late entry (e.g. age 58 and above) significantly increases sustainability risk;
  • the illustrated premium may never realistically sustain post-70 medical costs;
  • the policy may lapse even if premiums are continuously paid.

In many cases, these implications are not clearly explained in plain language, even though they might exist in fine print.

7. The Key Takeaway
Medical insurance under an investment-linked structure is not “pay and forget” insurance. It is:

  • a fund-dependent system,
  • driven by age-based cost escalation,
  • highly sensitive in the later years of life.

Once the engine becomes too large for the bucket, no amount of past premium payments can prevent depletion unless additional funds are injected.

Final Note
Understanding this structure is essential for making informed decisions – whether to continue, restructure, or exit a policy. The issue is not consumer ignorance, but product complexity combined with inadequate explanation at the point of sale.

Recent Post

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
zh_TWZH