8/18/2019 NG GAN ZEE

1/2

NG GAN ZEE vs.ASIAN CRUSADER LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION

FACTS:

In May 1962, Kwong Nam applied for a 20-year endowment insurane on !is life for t!e

sum of "20,000.00, wit! !is wife, appellee Ng #an $ee as %enefiiary.

Kwong Nam answered &No' regarding (sian )rusader*s +uestion

• as any life insurane ompany ever refused your appliation for insurane or for

reinstatement of a lapsed poliy or offered you a poliy different from t!at appliedfor If, so, name ompany and date.

/n t!e same date, appellant, upon reeipt of t!e re+uired premium from t!e insured,

approved t!e appliation and issued t!e orresponding poliy. 

Kwong Nam was also eamined %y (sian )rusader*s medial eaminer to w!om !e

dislosed t!at !e was one operated and a tumor was removed from !is stoma! andsu! was &assoiated wit! uler of t!e stoma!'.

/n eem%er 6, 196, Kwong Nam died of aner of t!e liver wit! metastasis. (ll

premiums !ad %een religiously paid at t!e time of !is deat!.

/n 3anuary 10, 1964, !is widow Ng #an $ee presented a laim in due form to appellant

for payment of t!e fae value of t!e poliy. owever, appellant (sIan )rusader deniedt!e laim on t!e ground t!at t!e answers given %y t!e insured to t!e +uestions appealingin !is appliation for life insurane were untrue

• Kwong Nam onealed material fats from t!em w!en !e was applying for t!e

insurane5

•

!at !e misrepresented t!e fat t!at !e was atually denied appliation %y Insular7ife w!en !e was renewing !is appliation wit! t!em5

• !at Kwong was diagnosed to !ave pepti ulers, and t!at during t!e operation

w!at was removed from Kwong*s %ody was atually a portion of t!e stoma! andnot tumor.

ISSUE:

- 8/N t!e appellant, %eause of Kwong Nam*s representation, misled or deeived into enteringt!e ontrat or in aepting t!e ris at t!e rate of premium agreed upon

HELD:

No.

It is provided in :etion 2; of t!e Insurane 7aw

8/18/2019 NG GAN ZEE

2/2

!us >)onealment eists w!ere t!e assured !ad nowledge of a fat material to t!e ris, and!onesty, good fait!, and fair dealing re+uires t!at !e s!ould ommuniate it to t!e assurer, %ut!e designedly and intentionally wit!!olds t!e same.>

It was also !eld >!at t!e onealment must, in t!e a%sene of in+uiries, %e not only material,%ut fraudulent, or t!e fat must !ave %een intentionally wit!!eld.>

8!ile it may %e oneded t!at, from t!e viewpoint of a medial epert, t!e informationommuniated was imperfet, t!e same was nevert!eless suffiient to !ave indued appellantto mae furt!er in+uiries a%out t!e ailment and operation of t!e insured.

Moreover, setion 2 of Insurane 7aw if t!e ailment and operation of Kwong Nam !ad su! an important%earing on t!e +uestion of w!et!er t!e defendant would undertae t!e insurane or not, t!eourt annot understand w!y t!e defendant or its medial eaminer did not mae any furt!er in+uiries on su! matters from t!e )!inese #eneral ospital or re+uire opies of t!e !ospitalreords from t!e appellant %efore ating on t!e appliation for insurane. !e fat of t!e matter is t!at t!e defendant was too eager to aept t!e appliation and reeive t!e insured?s premium.It would %e ine+uita%le now to allow t!e defendant to avoid lia%ility under t!e irumstanes.>

 It !as %een !eld t!at w!ere, upon t!e fae of t!e appliation, a +uestion appears to %e notanswered at all or to %e imperfetly answered, and t!e insurers issue a poliy wit!out anyfurt!er in+uiry, t!ey waive t!e imperfetion of t!e answer and render t!e omission to answer more fully immaterial.