A travel insurance policyholder who suffered a “panic attack” just before boarding a flight to see his lover in the UK has lost an appeal to have his claim accepted.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) agreed with Zurich Insurance that the panic attack was triggered by a pre-existing medical condition the claimant had been diagnosed with after consulting a clinical psychologist.

The claimant had visited the psychologist on June 12 last year with symptoms of “adjustment disorder with anxiety” over whether he should leave his wife and children for his lover. Two days later, on June 14, he bought the travel insurance after deciding he wanted to fly to the UK to be with her.

“The insurer has established that on the balance of probabilities the complainant’s panic attack arose from his adjustment disorder,” AFCA says. “The disorder was a pre-existing medical condition, because it was ongoing and medically documented when the complainant took out the policy.

“The complainant’s adjustment disorder led to his panic attack, which led to him cancelling the trip and lodging the claim. Therefore, the claim arose from a pre-existing medical condition.”

AFCA also says the claimant’s credibility was compromised by the conflicting accounts he provided about his medical condition.

After Zurich declined his claim in August last year, the claimant provided a follow-up letter from his psychologist, who withdrew his initial diagnosis of his patient’s condition.

The psychologist said instead that the panic attack was caused by the claimant’s worries about having sufficient access to the toilets during the long flight, and fears that his family would not be able to contact him.

“If the information in [the psychologist’s] first letter is false, the complainant would have known it was false when he provided it to the insurer to support his claim,” AFCA says. “If the information in the first letter is correct, the complainant is currently providing false information to support his claim.

“In either case, the complainant has demonstrated a willingness to provide false information to support his claim.”

Click here for the AFCA ruling.