Raus Sharif J:

This is an application by the applicant to set aside the award of the learned arbitrator, Dato' Peh Swee Chin made on 14 September 1999 on the grounds that there is an error of law on the face of the award and/or that the learned arbitrator has misconducted himself within the meaning of s. 24(2) of the Arbitration Act 1952 ("the Act").

Briefly, the factual background that led to this application by the applicant are as follows.

The applicant was seriously injured in an accident on 28 June 1992, as a result of which he sustained total blindness of his right eye. At the material time he was insured by all the respondents as well as by Mercantile Insurance Sdn. Bhd. As the result from his injuries, the applicant made his claims against the said insurance companies. The insurance companies, however, denied liability solely on the ground of misrepresentation and/or material non disclosure. By agreement, the parties appointed the learned arbitrator to determine the disputes. However, the claim against the Mercantile Insurance Sdn. Bhd. was stayed pending the granting of leave by the High Court to continue proceeding against it, as it had at the material time been wound up and under liquidation. Thus, the learned arbitrator proceeded only to hear the dispute between the four respondents and the applicant.

The issues agreed by the parties for trial before the learned arbitrator can be briefly stated. In regard to the first and second respondents, the first issue was whether the respondents had waived the requirement of disclosure by renewing their policies without requiring the applicant to fill and submit a fresh proposal. The second issue was whether the said renewal has been obtained by misrepresentation and/or non disclosure of material facts. In regard to the third and fourth respondents the only issue which the parties called the learned arbitrator to determine was whether the renewal of their policies had been obtained by misrepresentation and/or non disclosure of material facts.

The learned arbitrator in his awards dealt with the claims against the respondents in respect of the agreed issues in sequence. In respect of the first respondent the learned arbitrator stated as follows:

The accident took place during the continuance of the renewed policy No. 01-1021975 for the period of 7.3.92 to 6.3.93; the original policy bearing the same number having expired on 6.3.92. When it was about to expire, the respondent gave notice to the claimant as to whether the latter required its renewal for another year, the claimant agreed to it by paying the relevant premium without the first respondent requiring a fresh proposal to be filed in and signed.

Before the original policy was issued, the claimant had to and did fill in a proposal which appear at page 1 of the respondents' bundle of documents, hereinafter referred to as `BDB'. It will be relevant to refer to only question 4 of the proposed dated 7.3.91. The said question states: Are you at present insured against Life, Accident or Sickness? If yes, give details of name of company, amount of insurance (Capital sum and weekly benefit"). The answer given by the claimant states:

LIFE AIA $100,000/- P/A $200,000/-

The learned arbitrator then made a finding of fact that the applicant had disclosed only two of his existing policies and thus the answer by the applicant to the question as to the number of insurance policies he has was inaccurate or untrue. He further held the renewal of the policy constituted fresh contract and consequently on renewal, the duty of disclosure reattaches. To support his reasoning the learned arbitrator relies on a passage in Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd edn, vol. 22 para 484 wherein he quotes the following:

484 Renewal of fresh contract, where the policy is renewable by mutual consent, each renewal constitutes a fresh contract. Consequently, on each renewal, the duty of disclosure reattaches, and the assured must disclose any f