1. ) THERUMOORTHI A/L APPALANAIDU 2. ) ANJELAI DEVI A/P MANIAM v 1. ) PUBLIC BANK BERHAD 2. ) AIA BERHAD

wa-22ncc-528-07-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 22 July 2025 • WA-22NCC-528-07/2023

Catchwords

The 2 Health Questions are 2 separate questions that are independent of each other. They appear in two separate paragraphs and each requires a separate answer. This interpretation is supported by the fact that a question mark (?) is used at the end of each Health Question, which signifies the end of each Health Question-Public Bank does not owe any duty of care to advise the Deceased on his MDTA insurance policy-An insured’s duty to disclose material information to an insurer constitutes a duty which exists independently of any proposal form. The insurer need not ask for the information-The insurer is entitled to rely on the answers provided in the proposal form before issuing the policy and there is no duty on the insurer to investigate the answers provided by the insured-A contract of insurance is one that imposes a mutual duty on the parties to it to act uberrima fides [or in its genitive form uberrimae fides] [Latin for "utmost good faith"] towards each other. The insured must make full disclosure of all material facts. It is not for him or her to decide in his or her own mind what is material. It does not matter whether the insurer asks any questions of the insured. The duty is on the insured to make full disclosure of material facts within his knowledge-The common law duty of disclosure on the part of a person purchasing an insurance policy was codified in Malaysia in the Insurance Act 1996 which has now been repealed by the FSA [which replaced several existing laws to consolidate regulation under a single framework] which lays down the duty of disclosure for all insurance contracts-The Insurance Act 1996 and now the FSA have restricted to a certain extent the right of insurers to use the common law principle of uberrima fides to repudiate a policy of life insurance for misrepresentation. In essence, the FSA’s restriction is based on whether the contract of life insurance has been in effect for a period of two years or less or more than two years-For a consumer insurance contract of life insurance which has been effected for a period of two years or less, if a misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless, a licensed insurer may avoid the consumer insurance contract and refuse all claims-Where a contract of life insurance has been in effect for a period of more than two years during the lifetime of the insured, such a contract shall not be avoided by a licensed life insurer on the ground that a statement made or omitted to be made in the proposal for insurance or in a report of a doctor, referee, or any other person, or in a document leading to the issue of the life policy, was inaccurate or false or misleading unless the insurer shows that the statement was on a material matter or suppressed a material fact and that it was fraudulently made or omitted to be made by the policy owner or the insured-Deliberate or reckless misrepresentation is defined in Schedule 9 Part 2 paragraph 7(4) of the FSA-It is trite that a person is bound by his signature on a document and the terms therein regardless of whether he is ignorant of the language it is written in or whether he has read the document

Practice Areas

The 2 Health Questions are 2 separate questions that are independent of each other. They appear in two separate paragraphs and each requires a separate answer. This interpretation is supported by the fact that a question mark (?) is used at the end of each Health Question, which signifies the end of each Health Question-Public Bank does not owe any duty of care to advise the Deceased on his MDTA insurance policy-An insured’s duty to disclose material information to an insurer constitutes a duty which exists independently of any proposal form. The insurer need not ask for the information-The insurer is entitled to rely on the answers provided in the proposal form before issuing the policy and there is no duty on the insurer to investigate the answers provided by the insured-A contract of insurance is one that imposes a mutual duty on the parties to it to act uberrima fides or in its genitive form uberrimae fides Latin for "utmost good faith" towards each other. The insured must make full disclosure of all material facts. It is not for him or her to decide in his or her own mind what is material. It does not matter whether the insurer asks any questions of the insured. The duty is on the insured to make full disclosure of material facts within his knowledge-The common law duty of disclosure on the part of a person purchasing an insurance policy was codified in Malaysia in the Insurance Act 1996 which has now been repealed by the FSA which replaced several existing laws to consolidate regulation under a single framework which lays down the duty of disclosure for all insurance contracts-The Insurance Act 1996 and now the FSA have restricted to a certain extent the right of insurers to use the common law principle of uberrima fides to repudiate a policy of life insurance for misrepresentation. In essence, the FSA’s restriction is based on whether the contract of life insurance has been in effect for a period of two years or less or more than two years-For a consumer insurance contract of life insurance which has been effected for a period of two years or less, if a misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless, a licensed insurer may avoid the consumer insurance contract and refuse all claims-Where a contract of life insurance has been in effect for a period of more than two years during the lifetime of the insured, such a contract shall not be avoided by a licensed life insurer on the ground that a statement made or omitted to be made in the proposal for insurance or in a report of a doctor, referee, or any other person, or in a document leading to the issue of the life policy, was inaccurate or false or misleading unless the insurer shows that the statement was on a material matter or suppressed a material fact and that it was fraudulently made or omitted to be made by the policy owner or the insured-Deliberate or reckless misrepresentation is defined in Schedule 9 Part 2 paragraph 7(4) of the FSA-It is trite that a person is bound by his signature on a document and the terms therein regardless of whether he is ignorant of the language it is written in or whether he has read the document

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Parties (4)

AIA BERHAD Defendant PUBLIC BANK BERHAD Defendant Anjelai Devi a/p Maniam Plaintiff Therumoorthi a/l Appalanaidu Plaintiff

Case Significance

1. ) THERUMOORTHI A/L APPALANAIDU 2. ) ANJELAI DEVI A/P MANIAM v 1. ) PUBLIC ... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated July 22, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncc-528-07-2023). The case was decided by Leong Wai Hong.

What was the outcome of 1. ) THERUMOORTHI A/L APPALANAIDU 2. ) ANJELAI DEVI A/P MANIAM v 1. ) PUBLIC ...?

1. ) THERUMOORTHI A/L APPALANAIDU 2. ) ANJELAI DEVI A/P MANIAM v 1. ) PUBLIC ... is a High Court decision dated July 22, 2025. The case was heard by Leong Wai Hong. See the full judgment for details.