SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 MarsdenLR 3331

HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
JAMILAH HJ ALI & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
BANK SIMPANAN NASIONAL & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: JA-22NCVC-184-09/2018]



Petitioner Advocates:Ibrahim Haikal Razak ,Respondent Advocate: Nurul Asyiqin Azman

Non-disclosure of material facts in an insurance contract can void the contract; the insurer is entitled to reject claims based on such omissions.

Headnote:This case concerns the validity of a takaful contract following the death of a policyholder. The Court found that non-disclosure of prior medical conditions by the deceased invalidated the claim for benefits under the takaful certificate. The Plaintiffs, as beneficiaries, failed to establish any breach of contract by the defendants, thereby affirming the dismissal of their claim.

Table of Content
1. introduction of case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. clarification of plaintiffs' claim. (Para 4)
See Mee Chun J:

Introduction

[1] Rubi bte Hazim (deceased) had purchased a house in Pasir Gudang (property) where the property financing and Mortgage Reducing Term Takaful (MRTT) policy was provided by the 1st Defendant. The 2nd Defendant issued the takaful certificate No 40020004 (F/5-6) to the deceased under master certificate No MT006 (F/7-18) where the 1st Defendant is named as the master policyholder.

[2] The Plaintiffs claim is essentially against the 2nd Defendant for death benefits under the takaful certificate issued to the deceased.

[3] The deceased passed away on 26 January 2013 with the cause of death being diabetes (F/19).

Locus

[3] The Plaintiffs claim is in their capacity as owners of the property. The 1st Plaintiff is the mother, and the 2nd Plaintiff the sister, of the deceased. Although the locus of the Plaintiffs to initiate the suit was disputed, it is the Court's findng they have the locus being the owners of the property pursuant to the distribution order dated 16 June 2016 (C/tab M).

Witnesses

[4] The witnesses for the Plaintiffs were Chomil bte Hazim (PW1 and witness statement marked as WSP1) and Faridah bte Hazim (PW2 and witness statement marked as WSP2). The 1st Plaintiff was PW2's mother and the 2nd Plaintiff the elder sister to PW2. The witnesses for the 1st Defendant were Mohd Rizal bin Mohamad Aziz (DW1 (D1)), Region Head, Retail Banking and witness statement marked as WSD1 (D1) and Azrul bin Mohd Amin (DW2 (D1), Section Head of Credit Administration and witness statement marked as WSD2(D1). The witness for the 2nd Defendant was Kasthuri Dhevi Naidu (DW1 (D2)), Head of Claims and witness statement marked as (WSD1 (D2)).

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top