A traveller who sought to recover more than €16,000 in medical expenses following emergency surgery abroad has had the bulk of his claim rejected after Malta’s Arbiter for Financial Services concluded that his condition was foreseeable before the trip began.

The case, decided on 5th June 2026, offers a cautionary lesson for travellers who choose to fly despite experiencing symptoms before departure.

According to the decision, the traveller argued that he left Malta suffering only from minor back pain and mild sciatica. He maintained that he had not received any diagnosis and had not been advised against travelling.

However, while abroad, his condition deteriorated rapidly. The pain became severe enough that he travelled four hours to Athens for an MRI scan before undergoing urgent surgery. He later submitted claims amounting to approximately €16,000 for surgery and hospital expenses, as well as €500 in moral damages.

His insurer refused the claim, prompting him to take the matter before the Arbiter.

The insurer based its decision on an orthopaedic report prepared one day before the surgery. According to that report, the traveller had already been experiencing sharp back pain for five days before departure, with weakness emerging shortly before travelling.

The travel insurance policy specifically excluded claims arising from circumstances that were foreseeable before the journey and likely to occur during it.

After reviewing the evidence, the Arbiter agreed with the insurer's interpretation.

The ruling noted that travel insurance is intended to cover unexpected events rather than conditions that are already developing before a trip begins. The medical records showed a progression of symptoms in the days leading up to departure, making the subsequent medical emergency reasonably foreseeable.

In his decision, the Arbiter observed that consumers should not expect insurers to cover treatment costs that could have been avoided by cancelling or postponing a trip.

Nevertheless, the ruling acknowledged that the traveller's decision to continue with the journey appeared to have been motivated by personal circumstances rather than bad faith.

While rejecting the claim for medical and surgical expenses, the Arbiter found that the insurer should have considered the policy's trip cancellation provisions.

Had the traveller cancelled the trip before departure, the policy would have covered the cost of his flights, amounting to €2,246.26. Accommodation costs were not considered because they had been paid by relatives.

As a result, the insurer was ordered to pay €2,246.26 plus interest at 2.15 per cent per annum. The Arbiter also recommended that the insurer consider making an ex gratia payment within the policy's cancellation limits, although this recommendation is not binding.