Mohamad Habizan Bin Mohamad Yussof [Mendakwa sebagai Penama bagi Faedah Takaful Keluarga dalam No. Sijil PruBSN WarisanPlus: 87265644, Abdul Razak Bin Noor Mohamad, Si Mati] v PRUDENTIAL BSN TAKAFUL BERHAD
wa-22ncc-305-06-2022 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 20 March 2025 • WA-22NCC-305-06/2022 • 51 min read
8 cases cited
(0 SG, 8 foreign)
Catchwords
TAKAFUL LAW: Contract of utmost good faith – Misrepresentation and non-disclosure of material facts – Deliberate or reckless misrepresentations – Duty of proposer to provide accurate information – Duty of takaful operator regarding verification of information – Whether inclusion of certificate in Part A of Common Bundle precludes challenge to validity and enforceability – Whether takaful operator breached duty of utmost good faith by failing to investigate proposer's information before issuing certificate – Whether takaful operator entitled to rely on proposer's declarations without independent verification – Whether misrepresentation of annual income constituted material fact – Whether declaration of non-existent business entity constituted misrepresentation – Whether misrepresentation of source of takaful contribution payment established – Whether denial of substance consumption in proposal form constituted misrepresentation – Whether misrepresentations were material to takaful operator's risk assessment and underwriting decision – Whether misrepresentations were deliberate or reckless within meaning of Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 – Whether certificate void ab initio under Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 – Materiality presumption under statutory provisions INSURANCE LAW: Accidental death benefit – Exclusion clauses – Causation requirements for exclusions – Whether exclusion clauses for accidental death benefit apply to bar claim – Whether death caused by taking drugs or narcotics without prescription – Whether death caused by alcohol and drugs intoxication – Whether death caused by attempted suicide or self-inflicted injuries – Whether mere presence of substances in deceased's system sufficient to trigger exclusions without proof of causation – Whether substance levels below legal limits negate intoxication exclusion – Whether negligent behaviour constitutes reckless conduct amounting to self-inflicted injuries – Interpretation of exclusion clause language requiring direct or indirect causation CONTRACT LAW: Validity and enforceability of contracts – Formation of contracts based on misrepresentation – Effect of material misrepresentations on contract validity – Whether payment of statutory benefits constitutes admission of certificate validity and enforceability – Whether payment of benefits estops insurer from avoiding certificate or declining claims – Whether contractual provisions allow avoidance for misrepresentation – Interpretation of certificate terms and conditions – Distinction between acknowledging document existence and acknowledging legal enforceability EVIDENCE LAW: Burden of proof in misrepresentation cases – Standard of proof for establishing misrepresentations – Adverse inference under Evidence Act provisions – Whether adverse inference should be drawn for non-production of witnesses and documents – Whether failure to call material witnesses warrants adverse inference – Whether non-production of investigation findings, screening results, procedural documents, and written decisions warrants adverse inference – Whether party's failure to adduce documentary evidence of claimed activities and income warrants adverse inference – Distinction between withholding existing evidence and failure to obtain evidence – Materiality requirement for drawing adverse inference – Scope and limits of adverse inference provisions PROCEDURAL LAW: Common Bundle of Documents – Status of Part A documents – Whether agreement on document contents determines legal enforceability – Distinction between acknowledging document authenticity and acknowledging legal effect – Whether parties precluded from challenging validity of documents included in agreed bundles – Procedural convenience versus substantive legal determinations – Court's jurisdiction to determine contract validity despite document inclusion
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Case Significance
Mohamad Habizan Bin Mohamad Yussof [Mendakwa sebagai Penama bagi Faedah Takaf... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated March 20, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncc-305-06-2022). The case was decided by Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad.
What was the outcome of Mohamad Habizan Bin Mohamad Yussof [Mendakwa sebagai Penama bagi Faedah Takaf...?
Mohamad Habizan Bin Mohamad Yussof [Mendakwa sebagai Penama bagi Faedah Takaf... is a High Court decision dated March 20, 2025. The case was heard by Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad. See the full judgment for details.
Statutes Cited
Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
Rules of Court 2012
Cases Cited (8)
UK (1)
[1929] 2 KB 356
MY (7)
[1973] 1 MLJ 6 [1987] 1 MLJ 492 [1994] 1 MLJ 740 [2019] 10 CLJ 740 [2020] 7 MLJ 314 [2024] 2 MLRH 469 [2024] MLJU 2196
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-305-06-2022)