Zurich Takaful berhak batal polisi diperoleh secara tipu, putus mahkamah

The High Court of Ipoh ruled that Zurich Takaful Malaysia Bhd must cancel a family Takaful insurance policy it found was obtained through a deliberate fraud, despite the insurer's agent not following basic underwriting procedures. Magistrate Moses Susayan stated the agent claimed never to have met the policyholder, not witnessed the application form being signed, nor verified the information provided before the policy was issued.

However, he emphasized that this failure does not render the contract invalid since Zurich Takaful accepted the application, issued a certificate and paid RM3,000 in premiums. The magistrate found the policy obtained through false statements made knowingly by the policy's nominee, Yathavan Doraisamy, allowing Zurich Takaful to cancel the contract under Schedule 9 of the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013.

Zurich Takaful filed a lawsuit after rejecting Parameswaran Kannan's claims of wrongful death in a bicycle accident in April 2018, about six months after the policy was issued. The insurer alleged the application form contained false declarations about the policyholder's marriage status, employment, income, address, literacy level, alcohol consumption and the deceased's relationship with Yathavan.

Yathavan denied the allegations and filed a counterclaim seeking to rebut the policy's cancellation. In a 39-page judgment, Susayan noted statements, including another family Takaful policy designed with similar relationships, indicating a fraudulent scheme rather than mere mistake. He found it unreasonable for Parameswaran, still legally married and supporting his wife and five children, to abandon his family and appoint a distant relative as the nominee to receive the insurance payout of over RM800,000.

The magistrate inferred the application form was likely filled out by Yathavan to ensure the policy's benefits were paid to him. Although Zurich Takaful questioned the incident leading to Parameswaran's death, Susayan found no criminal wrongdoing on Yathavan's part, considering the case as a death claim. The court also dismissed Zurich Takaful's claim that the nominee committed perjury, stating there was no evidence to support the allegation despite some doubts about how the policy documents could end up in the nominee's possession.

When approving Zurich Takaful's claim, Susayan declared the cancellation of the policy was valid, dismissed Yathavan's counterclaim and ordered the insurance company to return RM3,000 to Parameswaran's wife. The magistrate did not issue any costs order, as the case should not have been brought to court since the insurer's agent had already secured immediate underwriting protection. Attorney Raam Kumar represented Zurich Takaful, while Vigneswaran Raju acted for Yathavan.