The insured must disclose material facts; failure results in lawful policy repudiation.

[1] In this action, the plaintiff, Mr Toh Sek Cheong, a Chartered Accountant, is claiming the sum RM200,000.00 which, he says, is due under a policy of insurance dated 17 November 2001 ("the policy") he took out with the defendant, Great Eastern Life Assurance (M) Bhd. In addition to the sum payable under the policy, the plaintiff also claims damages of between RM3.67 million to RM6.67 million.

Background Facts

[2] There is no dispute on the background facts that led to this litigation. I adopt with gratitude the facts as outlined by the counsel in their submissions.

[3] The policy, which is the subject matter of this action, is called "Supreme Livin Care - Whole Life Living Assurance with Cash Bonus". It is a life policy which provided coverage for death, total and permanent disability as well as a living assurance benefit.

[4] The plaintiff applied for the policy by a proposal form dated 6 November 2001 ("the proposal form") and the policy was issued to him on 17 November 2001. Based on the information provided in the proposal form, the defendant rated the plaintiff.

[5] As "standard rate", and required him to pay a standard premium rate for the policy as the proposal form indicated that he posed a normal risk profile, without any existing or potential health complications. The plaintiff paid the premium.

[6] The plaintiff underwent heart surgery in Singapore on 29 October 2014 and made a claim under the policy. Heart surgery was one of the events stated in endorsement 51(LAP) of the policy which entitled the plaintiff to make a claim on the policy under the living assurance coverage. On 23 December 2014, the defendant received from the plaintiff a copy of a living assurance claim form dated 22 December 2014, confidential medical certificate dated 6 December 2014, medical report issued by National Heart Centre Singapore and inpatient discharge summary issued by National Heart Centre Singapore.

[7] In the process of assessing the plaintiff's claim, the defendant noted:

(a) at section 1, Question 2 of the plaintiff's medical certificate, the plaintiff's attending doctor answered in the "positive" to the question whether the plaintiff had previously suffered from or had been detected to have, inter alia, hypertension;

(b) in the plaintiff's medical report, the plaintiff's attending doctor stated that the plaintiff had a medical history of hypertension and had also undergone surgery for L4, L5 fusion 20 years ago; and

(c) at the plaintiff's inpatient discharge summary, the plaintiff's attending doctor stated that the plaintiff had a medical history of hypertension and also had undergone surgery for L4, L5 fusion 20 years ago.

(d) that in the proposal form the plaintiff had declared that he had never suffered and never received any treatment for, inter alia, blood pressure, disorder and disease of bones, undergone any operation, or was previously hospitalised.

[8] By reason of the foregoing, the defendant by letter dated 30 December 2014 requested from the plaintiff the following documents/information:

(a) Name, contact number and address of all the doctors whom the plaintiff had consulted in the past three years;

(b) hypertension questionnaire to be completed by the plaintiff's treating doctor;

(c) hypertension questionnaire to be completed by the plaintiff honestly; and

(d) information relating to the plaintiff's surgery for L4, L5 fusion.

[9] The plaintiff responded within 22 days by his letter dated 20 January 2015 and enclosed, inter alia, the following documents:

(a) a copy of the hypertension questionnaire form dated 20 January 2015 duly completed and signed by the plaintiff himself; and

(b) a copy of the hypertension questionnaire form dated 15 January 2015 duly completed and signed by the plaintiff's treating doctor, Dr LS Ludher