The insured has a strict duty of utmost good faith to disclose all material facts; non-disclosure and misrepresentation entitle the insurer to repudiate claims, even where prior admissions were made.

JUDGMENT

Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad J:

[1] This judgment concerns a claim by the Plaintiff, Siva Prakash a/l Ramasamy, as executor and trustee of the estate of the Jachiswaran a/l Duroy Selvam ("the Deceased'), against the Defendant insurance company, MCIS Insurance Berhad, for failing to pay out on four life insurance policies. The key issues in dispute are firstly, whether the Deceased made misrepresentations or failed to disclose material facts about his health and income in the policy proposal forms,enabling the Defendant to avoid the policies. Secondly, the Defendant alleges the Deceased's signatures on one proposal form were forged. The court must weigh the evidence, including medical reports, salary documents, and expert opinions from handwriting analysts on both sides. Underlying this case are important questions about the duties of disclosure and good faith between insurers and consumers, and how the court should evaluate contested evidence to arrive at a just outcome.

Background Facts

[2] The Plaintiff is the Executor and Trustee of the estate of the Deceased, appointed through a Grant of Probate dated 21 July 2020.

[3] Between 2016 and 2019, the Deceased took out four insurance policies with the Defendant:

a) Policy No TL201600924571 ("P1") issued on 16 March 2016;

b) Policy No TL201600924512 ("P2") issued on 21 March 2016;

c) Policy No UL201601251132 ("P3") issued on 22 November 2016; and

d) Policy No UL201902237084 ("P4") issued on 25 July 2019.

[4] P1 and P2 were life assurance policies with Payer Benefit Riders on the lives of the Deceased's children, The jasvinee and Yuvanesh respectively. These policies provided for waiver of premiums by the Defendant until the nominees reached age 25 upon the Deceased's death. The sum insured for P1 was RM168,292.00 and for P2 was RM237,526.00.

[5] P3 was a life assurance policy with a guaranteed basic sum of RM62,500.00for the benefit of the Deceased's children. P4, issued under the insurer's "HiShield" plan, was a life policy on the Deceased's own life with a sum insured ofRM1,500,000.00.

[6] The Deceased passed away on 30 March 2020 due to multiple injuries sustained from a road traffic accident. On 8 August 2020, the Plaintiff submitted a Death Claim Form to the Defendant for all four policies.

[7] Initially, the Defendant admitted liability for P1, P2 and P3 via a letter dated 10 November 2020. The Defendant paid out RM63,341.58 under P3 and agreed to waive premiums for P1 and P2 effective 16 March 2021 and 21 March 2021 respectively, subject to payment of outstanding premiums. The Plaintiff paid these outstanding premiums on 10 December 2020.

[8] However, in a letter dated 21 April 2021, the Defendant repudiated the claims under P1, P2 and P4, treating the policies as void. The Defendant cited non-disclosure of material facts by the Deceased in the proposal forms, specifically a previous motor accident resulting in serious injuries and inconsistencies in declared occupation and earnings. The Defendant also alleged that the Deceased's signature in the P4 proposal form was forged.

The Plaintiff's Pleaded Case

[9] Aggrieved by the Defendant's decision, the Plaintiff initiated this legal action for breach of contract and failure to pay the policy benefits due under P1, P2 and P4. The Plaintiff seeks:

a) Enforcement of the Payer Benefit Rider under P1 and P2 (waiver of premiums); and

b) Payment of the RM1,500,000.00 sum assured under P4.

[10] The Plaintiff contends that the Deceased did not suffer from any physical or mental infirmity when completing the proposal forms, having fully recovered from the 2015 accident without disability. The Deceased allegedly did not consider this accident material due to his full recovery.

[11] Furthermore, the Plaintiff argues that the questions in the proposal form were general, unclear, and not specific enough to require disclosure of the 2015 accident.

[12] The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant acted in bad faith and unconscionably by:

a) Rejecting the clai