With a whole of life policy, the plans are usually reviewed every ten years and if the pot being built up is insufficient, the premium can be increased or the level of cover reduced to reflect any underperformance of the accruing fund. If someone had selected the maximum cover possible at outset, there will be little value in that pot in any event, inevitably leading to such amendment.

I'm going back to the design before that from the 1970s and earlier. In exchange for a fixed premium, the policyholder's estate receives a fixed sum on death. It would have been completely normal for such plans to have a non-guaranteed surrender value. There was even an endowment version, which at a price, would guarantee a lump sum at a future date.

When commissions were based on the sum assured, whole life non profit was a popular sale to students and others in their early twenties. There would be options to convert to endowment with profit "when you buy a house".