In the case of liver cancer, the insurance company can't refuse to pay compensation. This conclusion depends on many factors, such as whether the insured deliberately concealed it when insured, and whether it has been more than two years since insured. If the insured does not intentionally conceal when applying for insurance, and the contract has been established for more than 2 years at the time of the accident, then this contract becomes an indisputable contract and the insurance company cannot refuse to pay compensation. Of course, this is also the embodiment of the application of waiver and estelle principle (the insurer's "waiver" is reflected in its original review of the insurance application, but it was not reviewed due to its own reasons).

Waiver and estelle principle generally do not apply to insurance contracts signed on behalf of others. Especially in insurance with death as the condition of payment of insurance benefits, signing on behalf of the insured will lead to the invalidation of the contract (because the insurance company will think that the insurance is insured without the insured's knowledge). If the case must be analyzed by waiver and estelle principle, then unless the applicant has evidence to prove that the insurer is aware of the original signature, it cannot be considered that the insurer has expressed the meaning of "waiver".

The difference between these two situations is that whether the insurer "abstained" at first is different.

Hehe, I don't know if you understand what I mean after all this talk. In short, the case analysis of insurance should be based on the specific situation, and sometimes a small change in conditions may lead to the opposite conclusion.

Further reading: How to buy insurance, which is good, and teach you how to avoid these "pits" of insurance.