Facts of the case

The plaintiff by the name of Poh Siew Cheng (SPI) is a Singaporean and he has a shoe factory in Singapore. His wife owned a factory in Johor Bahru. Whilst the plaintiff was in his wife's factory in Johor Bahru, he was approached by an American International Assurance Co. Ltd ("AIA") Insurance Agent by the name of Ng See Sun who kept on pestering him to purchase a personal accident policy. The plaintiff informed Ng See Sun that he already had a personal accident insurance cover in Singapore, but despite that, the said Ng See Sun kept on asking the plaintiff to purchase a policy in Malaysia. The first segment of the notes of evidence speak volumes. In its original text, it reads as follows (see page 19 to page 20 of the first segment of the notes of evidence):

"Ng See Sun datang untuk jual polisi tersebut kepada saya. Beliau datang ke tempat saya, kadang menunggu sekali dan selalu beliau suruh saya beli Personal Accident policy daripadanya dan selalu dia suruh saya beli dan akhirnya saya beli.

Sebelum saya beli policy tersebut, saya ada bagitahu Ng See Sun bahawa saya juga ada insuran polisi di Singapura dan jawapan yang diberi oleh beliau adalah polisi di Singapura tidak ada kena mengena dengan polisi di Malaysia.

Ng See Sun ada pujuk saya untuk beli Personal Accident policy tersebut.

Saya bagitahu beliau saya sudah ada insuran polisi nyawa dan insuran policy personal accident di Singapura tetapi beliau masih pujuk saya untuk beli insuran ini."

Ng See Sun's persistence paid off. The plaintiff finally agreed and consented to purchase the personal accident policy in Malaysia. As an agent, Ng See Sun then took out a proposal form and started filling in the details. The plaintiff had all along disclosed the fact that he was suffering from diabetes and that he had life and personal accident policies in Singapore. But unfortunately, Ng See Sun in filling up the proposal form did not write down all these facts. The Statement of Claim, at paragraphs 4 and 5, emphasised that the plaintiff had disclosed all the facts pertinent to the occasion at hand and these paragraphs were worded in this way:

"4. The Plaintiff had disclosed all the facts and data which were required under the terms and conditions of the said Insurance Policy to the agent of the Defendant.

5. The Plaintiff disclosed to the agent of the Defendant in his application for the said Insurance Policy dated 16.5.91 that he was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus, a fact which he had disclosed to the same Insurance Company at its office in Singapore in which he is a policy holder there."

And when the plaintiff informed Ng See Sun of his diabetic condition, Ng See Sun nonchalantly replied (see page 20 of the first segment of the notes of evidence):

"Kencing manis tidak ada kena mengena dengan Personal Accident Policy dan tempoh laku adalah setahun sahaja."

The plaintiff also mentioned to Ng See Sun of the plaintiff's insurance policies in Singapore but Ng See Sun told the plaintiff that he (referring to Ng See Sun) did not require the details of the insurance policies in Singapore.

When the plaintiff received his personal accident insurance policy, he realised that the details of his diabetic condition was not disclosed. The plaintiff's daughter by the name of Poh Lee Leng (SP 2) also called Ng See Sun and she was told by Ng See Sun that the diabetic condition of her father need not be written in the proposal form as it was a personal accident policy and not a life policy.

On 6.9.1991, while the plaintiff was working he accidentally slipped and fell knocking onto the glass plate of a showcase shelf. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff suffered injury on his left eye (see the averments at paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Statement of Claim). This accident happened at the plaintiff's shoe factory in Singapore - the Blue Star Shoes (see page 25 of the first segment of the notes of evidence). According to the plaintiff, no one saw the accident which occurred at