Back
2024 MarsdenLR 1941
HIGH COURT MALAYA MELAKA
KHATIMAH IRIN & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
AIA BERHAD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: MA-22NCVC-27-08/2021]
Amendments to pleadings in insurance repudiation cases are permissible if they do not introduce new grounds and are made in good faith without causing prejudice to the opposing party.
Headnote:(A) Insurance Act – Misrepresentation – The Defendants sought to amend their Statements of Defence to include new grounds for repudiation based on the Deceased's failure to disclose his smoking history and medical conditions – The Court found no inordinate delay in filing the Applications and that the amendments did not introduce new grounds of repudiation but merely additional facts supporting the existing grounds. (Paras 9, 12, 17, 22)
(B) Amendments to Pleadings – The Court held that amendments to pleadings should not be refused if they do not cause injustice to the parties and are made in good faith. (Paras 12, 22)
Facts of the case: The Defendants repudiated three insurance policies based on alleged misrepresentations by the Deceased regarding his medical history and smoking habits. The Plaintiffs challenged the repudiation, leading to the Defendants' application to amend their Statements of Defence.
Findings of Court: The Court found that the amendments were permissible and did not prejudice the Plaintiffs, as they were made in a reasonable time before trial dates were fixed.
Issues: The main issues were whether there was a delay in filing the Applications and whether the amendments introduced new grounds of repudiation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the amendments were valid as they did not introduce new grounds but rather additional facts supporting the existing grounds of repudiation. The Court emphasized that delay alone is not a sufficient reason to deny an amendment.
Result: Applications allowed with costs.
JUDGMENT
Matter Before This Court
[1] This is a decision on an application by the Defendant to amend its Statement of Defence. This Application is heard together with 2 other applications in 2 other suits that involve the same subject matter and issues ('Applications'). Those 2 other suits are MA-22NCVC-28-08/2021 and MA-22NCVC-27-06/2022 (collectively referred to as the 'Suits').
[2] All those Suits arose from the decisions of the respective Defendants i.e AIA Berhad and AIA Public Takaful Berhad in repudiating via letters dated 13 June 2018, 3 insurance policies issued in the name of Hamzah b Abdul Hamid ('Deceased'). The 1st Plaintiff and 2nd Plaintiff in suit MA-22NCVC-27-08/2021 ('suit 27-08/2021) and MA-22NCVC-28-08/2021 ('suit 28-08/2021') are the Deceased's wife and daughter whilst in suit MA-22NCVC-27-06/2022 ('suit 27-06/2022'), the 2nd Plaintiff is the Deceased's second wife. AIA Berhad is the Defendant in suit 27-08/2021 whilst AIA Public Takaful Berhad ('APTB') is the Defendant in suits 28-08/2021 and 27-06/2022 (AIA Berhad and APTB are collectively referred to as the "Defendants').
Background Facts
[3] It is the Defendants' case that the Deceased had made deliberate and/or wreckless misrepresentations when he failed to declare his past medical history in his insurance proposal forms The Defendants regard these misrepresentations as material non disclosures / misrepresentations justifying the repudiation of the respective policies.
[4] At para 16 of the Defendants' respective Statements of Defence, the Defendants pleaded that the Deceased had failed to declare that he had a history of ischemic cerebrovascular ailment, type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. Those failures were the basis for the repudiation of all the insurance policies issued to the Deceased.
[5] Following the filing of all the Suits by the Plaintiffs to challenge the repudiations, the Defendant in suit 28-08/2021, that is APTB, sought a discovery of documents from Hospital Melaka.
[6] The Defendants' Applications in encl 34 (suit 27-08/2021), enclosure 47 (suit 28-08/2021) and encl 37 (suit 2706/2022) arose after APTB obtained an order by consent of parties dated 18 April 2022 in suit 28-08/2021 for discovery of documents. The clinical notes from Hospital Melaka revealed that the Deceased was a heavy smoker smoking 10 cigarettes per day for 44 years.
[7] This new information became another instance of misrepresentation committed by the Deceased in the relevant proposal forms When filling out the insurance application forms, the Deceased had ticked "No" when asked whether he had smoked any cigarettes in the past 12 months. Thus, the Deceased appeared to have further misrepresented to the Defendants on his lifestyle and health information. The Defendants now seek to amend their respective Statements of Defence to add this new information as an additional ground justifying the repudiation of the respective insurance policies.
[8] The Plaintiffs oppose these applications on 2 grounds:
(a) on the matter of delay in filing the Applications; and
(b) that the Defendants cannot add a new ground of repudiation to the ground of repudiation as stated in the letters dated 13 June 2018 since the repudiation has already taken effect and the Suits are filed based on the grounds stated in those letters.
Courts Deliberations
On The Issue Of Delay
[9] The Plaintiff argues that there had been a gross delay of 15 months from when the Defendants received the documents from Hospital Melaka in May 2022 until the applications were filed on 18 August 2023. There was no indication that the Applications would be filed despite 9 case managements since May 2022. Reference was made to the decisions in Astana Modal (M) Sdn Bhd v. BS Testing Laboratory Sdn Bhd & Ors (Encl 52) and Hong Leong Finance Bhd v. Low Thiam Hoe & Another Appeal, .
[10] The Defendants argue on the other hand, that there is no gross or inordinate delay in filing the Applications. The delay, if
