The court emphasized the necessity of full disclosure in insurance contracts, ruling that material non-disclosure invalidates the policy and confirming that claimants bear the burden of proving accidental death.

Brief Facts

[1] On 25 May 1998 the late Tholan s/o Iyasamy (the insured) signed two proposal forms (Rekod Rayuan pp 207 and 220) to purchase two Classic PA personal accident insurance policies and on 1 June 1998, the insured signed another proposal form (Rekod Rayuan p 232) to purchase a comprehensive PA personal accident insurance policy from the appellant.

[2] The sum insured for accidental death in the three policies issued were RM50,000, RM200,000 and RM30,000 respectively. On 3 June 1999, the sum insured for the first and second policies were increased from RM50,000 to RM100,000 and from RM200,000 to RM300,000 respectively.

[3] In all three proposal forms, the insured had stated his estimated annual income to be RM150,000 and under the column 'Occupation' he had described himself as "a self-employed Managing Proprietor of a business selling and buying oil palm bunches".

[4] The insured passed away on 29 August 1999 at about 8.50am in his house.

[5] The respondent was named as the beneficiary in the third policy only.

[6] On 14 September 2000, the appellant declined the respondent's claim on the three policies on the ground that the cause of death of the deceased was intracerebral haemorrhage secondary to hypertension which was an illness whilst the purported personal accident policies only covered accidental death sustained as a result of "bodily injury effected directly and independently of all other causes by accident".

[7] By a writ of summons dated 2 January 2001 the respondent claimed that the insured had died as a result of an accident when he fell in the toilet of his house on 29 August 1999 and not that he died from hypertension. The respondent accordingly claimed for the sums insured totaling RM430,000 together with general damages, interest and costs.

The High Court Trial

[8] At trial, three issues were agreed to be raised for the determination of the Court namely whether:

(a) the respondent was the nominee in all the three policies;

(b) there was material non-disclosure by the insured; and

(c) the death of the insured was due to an accident or due to an illness.

[9] After a full trial the learned judge held that the respondent was a nominee of the insured in all the three policies, that there was no material non-disclosure by the insured in the three proposal forms and that the death of the insured was due to a fall in the toilet within the meaning of the terms of the insurance policies and was not due to illness. Judgment for the sum of RM430,000 together with interest at 8% per annum on the judgment sum and costs of RM20,000 was accordingly entered for the respondent.

[10] The appellant being dissatisfied with the decision appealed against it.