The burden of proof in insurance claims lies with the claimant to substantiate their case, particularly in instances involving alleged fraud or non-disclosure.

[1] The Appellant/Plaintiff ('the Appellant') has appealed against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge ('the SCJ') given on 6 February 2015 dismissing the Appellant's claim with costs as per scale after a full trial.

[2] The brief background facts in this appeal are these: The Appellant purchased an insurance policy for his car Nissan GT-R35(A) bearing registration no. WWM 39 ('the said car') from the Respondent/ Defendant ('the Respondent') with Policy no: CGPC-PB574551- BRTCBBK for the period from 18 November 2011 till 28 March 2013 for the sum of RM5000,000.00 (pp 46-54 Record of Appeal ('ROA')).

2.1 The Appellant claimed that on 30 December 2012 while he was driving the said car along Jalan Tropicana Selatan, the said car was robbed (Appellant's Statement of Claim, pp 11-13 ROA, Appellant's Police Report, p 57 ROA).

2.2 The Appellant claimed that the loss of the said car has been classified as a case of robbery under s.395/397 of the Penal Code solely on the basis of a letter dated 2 October 2013 issued by the police, and the police has yet to track the said car and has not made any arrest following the incident (p 62 ROA).

2.3 The Appellant has informed the Respondent regarding the robbery with the intention of making an insurance claim for indemnity under the Policy for loss and damage allegedly experienced by him as a result of the incident.

2.4 By letter dated 10 April 2013, the Respondent rejected the Appellant's insurance claim (p 64 ROA).

2.5 Through an action in the Sessions Court, the Appellant's claim against the Respondent is for indemnity payment and losses under the Policy for a sum of RM500,000.00 based on the value of the insured as well as compensation for losses allegedly suffered as a result of the action of the Respondent rejecting his claim (pp 16-17 ROA).

[3] Immediately after receiving the Appellant's claim for indemnity and losses under the Policy, the Respondent appointed the adjuster to investigate in relation to the alleged robbery incident and who then prepared a written report on his findings (pp 103-111 ROA).

3.1 The Respondent alleged that the Appellant failed to disclose the following material facts pertaining to his previous claims history at the time of entry under the Policy:

(a) that the Appellant had made an insurance claim relating to loss of a motorcar No JFV 3024;

(b) that the Appellant had made an insurance claim relating to loss of motorcar No WGA 900; and

(c) that the Appellant had made an insurance claim on the loss suffered in relation with the car No WC 39 on the basis of total constructive loss.

3.2 The Respondent claimed that the facts set out above are material and relevant to the Respondent to allow them to evaluate and decide whether to accept the risks associated with the said car and/or to allow the Respondent to define the terms (including premium) which they will bear if the risks towards the Appellant is accepted by the Respondent. Failure to disclose the material facts had prejudiced the Respondent.

3.3 Considering the facts that have been described in paras 3.1 to 3.2 above, the Respondent discovered that the Appellant had defaulted on the terms and conditions of the policy, especially Conditions 1- Duty of Disclosure, which entitled the Respondent to disclaim the Appellant under the policy.

3.4 The Respondent claimed that the adjuster's investigation indicated that the Appellant had failed to present the facts related to past claims history clearly raised doubts and/or suspicion on the validity of claims of the Appellant.

3.5 The Respondent was then referred to Messrs Akhbar & Associates to carry out a polygraph examination to verify the Appellant's statements and credibility.