QUOTE(Matilda C. @ Jul 29 2014, 03:51 PM)
Thanks for your reply, Zest & Roystevenung.
There is a news stating there was a son sued insurance company over death benefits. The insurance company denied to pay death claim of a mother who died of heart attack, claiming that she has pre-existing condition of anemia and did not disclose it to the insurer. Nevertheless, the death has nothing to do with anemia - it's due to heart attack. And the son stated the mother did not go for medical checkup hence did not aware she had anemia (not fraudulent undisclosure). Therefore, if the claim is not related to the undisclosed pre-existing condition, should the insurance company proceed to pay the claim to the insured/nominee?
For example, if the pre-existing condition not disclosed is hypertension, but the insured is diagnosed with cancer. Will/should the insurance company proceed to pay the claim?
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/...death-benefits/Life Insurance policy is a legal contract enforceable by law. As in any contract, it is bound by its terms and conditions, hence any breach in the contract will render it null and void.
Firstly, the insurance company must have concrete evidence supported by a medical report from the insured's attending physician over the diagnosis of anaemia. Whether the doctor explained to the patient about the condition or not is really between the patient and doctor. As far as the medical report concerned, it would be stated that a diagnosis of anaemia was made on ddmmyyyy. Unless the doctor clearly wrote in the medical report that he/ she did not tell the patient about the diagnosis, then the nominee may have a case, but I doubt so the doctor would write such medical report.
Now, the diagnosis of anaemia which was a pre-existing condition, but the insured in fact died of heart attack, which is not related to anaemia. Question is whether is this fair? Did insurance company cheat? Let's go back to the basis of contract.
The insurer issued the policy based on utmost good faith. However, the diagnosis of anaemia was not disclosed. Whether such non disclosure was intentional or not is secondary, the fact remained it was not disclosed. If such condition of anaemia was disclosed during application, would the insurer still issue the policy as applied for? In the case of anaemia, usually the insurer will ask for the underlying cause of anaemia, if such underlying cause was not found, they would have postponed the application until the cause is known. So, if this fact was disclosed during application, the insurer would not have simply issued the policy as applied. We may not know the final outcome because there are many dependencies after that.
Assuming the best case scenario, the anaemia was nothing sinister as the insured just recovered from dengue fever two weeks ago. Then the policy would have been issued at standard rate.
The medium case scenario, the anaemia was due to low iron in the blood. Hence, the insurer need to charge a higher premium and/ or impose loading on medical card (if any). The insurer counter offer this to the insured, depending on the insured whether to take it up or not, hence there are two outcome - accept the counteroffer or reject it.
Worst case scenario, the anaemia was due to cancer. Obviously, application would be declined right away by the insurer.
Therefore, as long as any material non disclosure affecting the original decision of the insurer in issuing the policy, the contract will become null and void from inception. Now, whether the insured subsequently passed away due to heart attack or even an accident, is irrelevant.
Bottomline is, better to tell all the truth, nothing but the truth on utmost good faith.