Back
2010 MarsdenLR 541
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
TAN JING JEONG – Appellant
Versus
ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE MALAYSIA BHD & ANOR – Respondent
[Suit No: D7-22-1281-2006]
Insurance contracts impose a duty of utmost good faith, requiring full disclosure of material facts; failure leads to potential voidability of the contract.
Headnote:(A) Contracts Act 1950 - Section 76 - Misrepresentation and non-disclosure in insurance - Plaintiff purchased Investment-linked insurance product under false representations regarding premium payments and fund allocation. Defendants failed to disclose significant administration charges impacting the investment. Court found misrepresentation and non-disclosure constituted grounds for contract rescission. (Paras 6-34)
(B) Duty of utmost good faith - Insurance contracts demand full disclosure of material facts, breach leads to contract voidability. Court reaffirmed principles from Carter v. Boehm. (Paras 21-24)
(C) Estoppel - Plaintiff not estopped from avoiding contract as actions arose after awareness of misrepresentation. (Paras 31-32)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff purchased an Investpro insurance policy based on representations made by the defendant's agent, which included assurances regarding premium sufficiency and expected returns. The defendants failed to disclose that a significant portion of the premium would be used for administrative charges, leading to a substantial loss in investment.
Findings of Court:
The plaintiff established misrepresentation and non-disclosure resulting in a validly avoided contract, with damages to be assessed.
Issues: Primary questions revolved around the presence of misrepresentation, duty of disclosure regarding premium allocation, and the contract's status as voidable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that both parties in insurance contracts must act in utmost good faith and disclose all material facts, establishing grounds for rescission based on the defendants' failures.
Result: Judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, with defendants ordered to pay costs.
[1] At the end of 2004, Mr Tan Jing Jeong ('TJJ') had bought an insurance policy from the Allianz Life Insurance Malaysia Berhad ('the defendant insurance company'-D1), through one of its agents by the name of Mr Ong Tuan Soon (OTS-D2). The insurance product was a Life Policy known as the 'Investpro'. It was undisputed that, among others, the terms of the Investro policy had included the following:
(a) the premium of the policy was RM400,000 per annum;
(b) that the life insurance coverage was RM8 million;
(c) the total and permanent disability coverage was RM1 million;
(d) that the monthly service charges was RM3; and
(e) the fund management charge was 1.5% p.a.
[2] This product was in the nature of an investment-linked insurance policy and as such a certain portion of the premium was allocated for investment-linked fund for the purpose of yielding returns from the investment. In fact, it was provided that 45% of the premium of RM400,000 which had translated to RM180,000, was earmarked for that very purpose.
[3] TJJ had paid the first year premium for this Investpro insurance product in full and he had expected a reasonable return from his investment in the Investpro policy, besides providing him the intended insurance cover, which OTS had sold to him.
[4] However, on 27 February 2006, TJJ was notified by the defendant insurance company (D1) that the investment-linked fund total account value of the policy had, by 31 December 2005 dwindled to RM19,024.48 from the initial figure of RM180,000. Besides that, via a notice dated 7 December 2005, the same insurance company had issued TJJ with a Premium Due Notice requiring him to pay the premium for the next policy year in the sum of RM400,000.
[5] As it had unfolded before this court, TJJ ('the plaintiff') had sued the insurance company ('the D1') and OTS ('the D2') for having sold to him the Investpro policy by way of misrepresenting to him about it, as well as by way of non-disclosure of material fact policy in their possession regarding the feature of the Investpro which, it was alleged by the plaintiff, they ought to have disclosed to him, as it would have impacted on his decision whether to buy the Investpro policy or not, in the first place. As a result, the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to rescind what was actually a voidable contract at his instance and for a refund of the premium that he had paid to the defendants with respect to the Investpro policy. He had also claimed for general damages to be assessed,; with interest and costs against both the defendants (D1 and D2).
[6] A number of contentious issues had been raised by both parties in this litigation, the determination of which would resolve this case one way or the other and they were contained in bundle marked as 'D'.
The salient issues may be postulated as follows:
(a) Was there misrepresentation or material non-disclosure by D2 with respect to the features of the Investpro policy?
(b) Was there a duty on the Defendants to disclose on the use of the balance 55% of the premium paid by the plaintiff as premium for the policy?
(c) Was the Investpro policy a contract made in utmost good faith and requiring full disclosure by both parties?
(d) If it was, was it a voidable contract at the instance of the plaintiff? If so, was the plaintiff estopped from avoiding it?
[7] In this case, the plaintiff had alleged two main issues raised against both the defendants, namely misrepresentation and non-disclosure of material facts to him on their part. The misrepresentations are with respect to one time premium payment and the non-disclosure of a material fact that had been concerned with the use of the 55% balance of the premium paid by the plaintiff to the D1. It has been the plaintiff's pleaded case that these two alleged circumstances had misled him into purchasing the Investpro policy from D2. On account of those allegations, the plaintiff believed that the contract between him and the D1 was a voidable contract and
