Back
2018 MarsdenLR 3915
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MINACHI THURAISAMY – Appellant
Versus
ZURICH INSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCC-363-10-2016]
Insurers can repudiate life insurance policies based on material misrepresentation or non-disclosure by the insured, even if death occurs within the contestable period.
Headnote:{ - Statute Analysis: The relevant statutory provisions referenced include the Financial Services Act 2013, the Insurance Act 1996, the Contracts Act 1950, and the Limitation Act 1953. The court analyzed the validity of the life insurance policy under these statutes in determining the outcome of the case. - Facts of the Case: The plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of the deceased, claimed against the defendant for insurance benefits following the death of her son. The defendant repudiated the claim citing non-disclosure of material facts regarding the deceased’s past drug offenses. -
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the defendant's repudiation, concluding that the deceased's failure to disclose material facts justified the voiding of the insurance policy under insurance law principles. -
Issues: Main issues included whether the defendant's repudiation of the policy was lawful and if there was non-disclosure of material facts by the deceased. -
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the deceased’s prior drug offenses constituted material facts, and as such, the defendant’s repudiation was lawful. Judicial precedents stressed the importance of truthfulness in insurance applications for the validity of the policies. -
Result: The plaintiff's claim was dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of the parties involved in the life insurance policy. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the deceased’s employment and circumstances of death. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. discussion on the lawful repudiation of the insurance policy. (Para 15 , 18 , 46) |
| 4. clarification of the insurance money’s entitlement. (Para 57 , 66) |
| 5. examination of the void nature of the limitation clause under statutory law. (Para 74 , 79) |
Introduction
[1] This is a writ action filed by the plaintiff premised on a life insurance contract entered by one Perniagaan Kathiravan and the defendant company, the insurer where Perniagaan Kathiravan took out a life insurance policy for a total sum of RM1,200,000.00. The life assured was that of one Letchumanan Angamuthoo (Deceased), an employee of Perniagaan Kathiravan. At the end of a full trial hearing, the plaintiff's claim for insurance monies was dismissed with costs.
Parties
[2] The plaintiff, Minachi Thuraisamy, the mother of the Deceased is the administratrix of the estate of Lechumanan Angamuthoo (Deceased) and the sole beneficiary residing at N 3-03, Jalan Mahkota 9, Bandar Mahkota Cheras Town House, 43200 Cheras Selangor.
[3] The defendant is a limited liability company incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 and is engaged principally in the underwriting of life insurance business. The defendant was formerly known as Malaysian Assurance Alliance Berhad.
The Plaintiff's Pleaded Case
[4] At the material time, the Deceased was employed by Perniagaan Kathiravan as a labourer at Perniagaan Kathiravan's car wash business. Perniagaan Kathiravan had purchased a life insurance policy Registration No M130647027 from the defendant.
[5] The Deceased passed away on 15 November 2013 at about 7.30am. The cause of death as stated in the post mortem report was 'Asphyxia secondary to drowning'.
[6] It is the plaintiff's case that:
(a) at the time of the Deceased's death the life insurance policy was still in force.
(b) the plaintiff denies there was misrepresentation and non-disclosure of material facts on the part of the Deceased when applying for the life insurance policy. The non-disclosure are irrelevant as the death of the Deceased was due to drowning and not any other causes.
(c) alternatively any misrepresentation or omission was attributable to the defendant, its employee or agent who did not ask for or explain the questions properly when filling the proposal form.
(d) the plaintiff will refer to Consumers Protection Act 1999 to exonerate the Deceased from any acts or omission as stated by the defendant.
(e) the defendant's repudiation of the life insurance policy is unlawful. The repudiation has no effect as the life insurance policy has already crystallised.
(f) the life insurance policy has become incontestable under the Financial Services Act 2013 and the defendant is precluded from denying liability under the said policy.
(g) the plaintiff is not aware that the defendant had refunded the premium to Perniagaan Kathiravan. Furthermore, the plaintiff is not bound by any action to refund the premium.
(h) the provision in the life insurance policy which states that any claim is to be brought within two years from the expiration of time within which proof of loss is required under life insurance policy is void pursuant to the Contracts Act 1950 and the Limitation Act 1953 . Time only starts to run from the defendant's rejection of the claim.
(i) any delay is due to the defendant's refusal to provide a copy of the life insurance policy. Vide a letter dated 1 August 2015, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant claiming for the money and other benefits under the life insurance policy. Subsequently, the plaintiff wrote again to the defendant vide letters dated 4 September 2015, 7 March 2016 and 26 May 2016 asking for the release of the monies under the said policy. However, the defendant failed to do so. The defendant had also refused to provide a copy of the life insurance policy or any detai
