Insurance Case Digests - Devices

Published on February 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 58 | Comments: 0 | Views: 467
of 6
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

[G.R. No. 113899. October 13, 1999] GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORP., petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND MEDARDA V. LEUTERIO, Respondents. QUISUMBING, J.: A contract of group life insurance was executed between petitioner Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation (hereinafter Grepalife) and Development Bank of the Philippines (hereinafter DBP). Grepalife agreed to insure the lives of eligible housing loan mortgagors of DBP. On November 11, 1983, Dr. Wilfredo Leuterio, a physician and a housing debtor of DBP applied for membership in the group life insurance plan. In an application form, Dr. Leuterio answered questions concerning his health condition as follows: 7. Have you ever had, or consulted, a physician for a heart condition, high blood pressure, cancer, diabetes, lung, kidney or stomach disorder or any other physical impairment? Answer: No. If so give details ___________. 8. Are you now, to the best of your knowledge, in good health? Answer: [ x ] Yes [ ] No.[4 On November 15, 1983, Grepalife issued Certificate No. B-18558, as insurance coverage of Dr. Leuterio, to the extent of his DBP mortgage indebtedness amounting to eighty-six thousand, two hundred (P86,200.00) pesos. On August 6, 1984, Dr. Leuterio died due to massive cerebral hemorrhage. Consequently, DBP submitted a death claim to Grepalife. Grepalife denied the claim alleging that Dr. Leuterio was not physically healthy when he applied for an insurance coverage on November 15, 1983. Grepalife insisted that Dr. Leuterio did not disclose he had been suffering from hypertension, which caused his death. Allegedly, such non-disclosure constituted concealment that justified the denial of the claim. On October 20, 1986, the widow of the late Dr. Leuterio, respondent Medarda V. Leuterio, filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 18, against Grepalife for Specific Performance with Damages.[5 During the trial, Dr. Hernando Mejia, who issued the death certificate, was called to testify. Dr. Mejias findings, based partly from the information given by the respondent widow, stated that Dr. Leuterio complained of headaches presumably due to high blood pressure. The inference was not conclusive because Dr. Leuterio was not autopsied, hence, other causes were not ruled out. On February 22, 1988, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of respondent widow and against Grepalife. On May 17, 1993, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial courts decision. Synthesized below are the assigned errors for our resolution: 1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding petitioner liable to DBP as beneficiary in a group life insurance contract from a complaint filed by the widow of the decedent/mortgagor? 2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that Dr. Leuterio concealed that he had hypertension, which would vitiate the insurance contract? 3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding Grepalife liable in the amount of eighty six thousand, two hundred (P86,200.00) pesos without proof of the actual outstanding mortgage payable by the mortgagor to DBP. To resolve issue 1, we must consider the insurable interest in mortgaged properties and the parties to this type of contract. The rationale of a group insurance policy of mortgagors, otherwise known as the mortgage redemption insurance, is a device for the protection of both the mortgagee and the mortgagor. On the part of the mortgagee, it has to enter into such form of contract so that in the event of the unexpected demise of the mortgagor during

the subsistence of the mortgage contract, the proceeds from such insurance will be applied to the payment of the mortgage debt, thereby relieving the heirs of the mortgagor from paying the obligation.[7 In a similar vein, ample protection is given to the mortgagor under such a concept so that in the event of death; the mortgage obligation will be extinguished by the application of the insurance proceeds to the mortgage indebtedness.[8 Consequently, where the mortgagor pays the insurance premium under the group insurance policy, making the loss payable to the mortgagee, the insurance is on the mortgagors interest, and the mortgagor continues to be a party to the contract. In this type of policy insurance, the mortgagee is simply an appointee of the insurance fund, such loss-payable clause does not make the mortgagee a party to the contract.[9 Insured, being the person with whom the contract was made, is primarily the proper person to bring suit thereon. * * * Subject to some exceptions, insured may thus sue, although the policy is taken wholly or in part for the benefit of another person named or unnamed, and although it is expressly made payable to another as his interest may appear or otherwise. * * * Although a policy issued to a mortgagor is taken out for the benefit of the mortgagee and is made payable to him, yet the mortgagor may sue thereon in his own name, especially where the mortgagees interest is less than the full amount recoverable under the policy, * * *. And since a policy of insurance upon life or health may pass by transfer, will or succession to any person, whether he has an insurable interest or not, and such person may recover it whatever the insured might have recovered,[14 the widow of the decedent Dr. Leuterio may file the suit against the insurer, Grepalife. The second assigned error refers to an alleged concealment that the petitioner interposed as its defense to annul the insurance contract. Petitioner contends that Dr. Leuterio failed to disclose that he had hypertension, which might have caused his death. Concealment exists where the assured had knowledge of a fact material to the risk, and honesty, good faith, and fair dealing requires that he should communicate it to the assured, but he designedly and intentionally withholds the same.[15 Petitioner merely relied on the testimony of the attending physician, Dr. Hernando Mejia, as supported by the information given by the widow of the decedent. Grepalife asserts that Dr. Mejias technical diagnosis of the cause of death of Dr. Leuterio was a duly documented hospital record, and that the widows declaration that her husband had possible hypertension several years ago should not be considered as hearsay, but as part of res gestae. On the contrary the medical findings were not conclusive because Dr. Mejia did not conduct an autopsy on the body of the decedent. As the attending physician, Dr. Mejia stated that he had no knowledge of Dr. Leuterios any previous hospital confinement.[16 Dr. Leuterios death certificate stated that hypertension was only the possible cause of death. The private respondents statement, as to the medical history of her husband, was due to her unreliable recollection of events. Hence, the statement of the physician was properly considered by the trial court as hearsay. The question of whether there was concealment was aptly answered by the appellate court, thus: The insured, Dr. Leuterio, had answered in his insurance application that he was in good health and that he had not consulted a doctor or any of the enumerated ailments, including hypertension; when he died the attending physician had certified in the death certificate that the former died of cerebral hemorrhage, probably secondary to hypertension. From this report, the appellant insurance company refused to pay the insurance claim. Appellant alleged that the insured had concealed the fact that he had hypertension. Contrary to appellants allegations, there was no sufficient proof that the insured had suffered from hypertension. Aside from the

statement of the insureds widow who was not even sure if the medicines taken by Dr. Leuterio were for hypertension, the appellant had not proven nor produced any witness who could attest to Dr. Leuterios medical history... xxx Appellant insurance company had failed to establish that there was concealment made by the insured, hence, it cannot refuse payment of the claim.[17 The fraudulent intent on the part of the insured must be established to entitle the insurer to rescind the contract.[18 Misrepresentation as a defense of the insurer to avoid liability is an affirmative defense and the duty to establish such defense by satisfactory and convincing evidence rests upon the insurer.[19 In the case at bar, the petitioner failed to clearly and satisfactorily establish its defense, and is therefore liable to pay the proceeds of the insurance. And that brings us to the last point in the review of the case at bar. Petitioner claims that there was no evidence as to the amount of Dr. Leuterios outstanding indebtedness to DBP at the time of the mortgagors death. Hence, for private respondents failure to establish the same, the action for specific performance should be dismissed. Petitioners claim is without merit. A life insurance policy is a valued policy.[20 Unless the interest of a person insured is susceptible of exact pecuniary measurement, the measure of indemnity under a policy of insurance upon life or health is the sum fixed in the policy.[21 The mortgagor paid the premium according to the coverage of his insurance, which states that: The policy states that upon receipt of due proof of the Debtors death during the terms of this insurance, a death benefit in the amount of P86,200.00 shall be paid. G.R. No. 105135 June 22, 1995 SUNLIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, petitioner, vs. The Hon. COURT OF APPEALS and Spouses ROLANDO and BERNARDA BACANI, respondents. QUIASON, J.: On April 15, 1986, Robert John B. Bacani procured a life insurance contract for himself from petitioner. He was issued Policy No. 3903-766-X valued at P100,000.00, with double indemnity in case of accidental death. The designated beneficiary was his mother, respondent Bernarda Bacani. On June 26, 1987, the insured died in a plane crash. Respondent Bernarda Bacani filed a claim with petitioner, seeking the benefits of the insurance policy taken by her son. Petitioner conducted an investigation and its findings prompted it to reject the claim. Petitioner claimed that the insured gave false statements in his application when he answered the following questions: 5. Within the past 5 years have you: a) consulted any doctor or other health practitioner? b) submitted to: EGG? X-rays? blood tests? other tests? c) attended or been admitted to any hospital or other medical facility? 6. Have you ever had or sought advice for:

xxx xxx xxx b) urine, kidney or bladder disorder? (Rollo, p. 53) The deceased answered question No. 5(a) in the affirmative but limited his answer to a consultation with a certain Dr. Reinaldo D. Raymundo of the Chinese General Hospital on February 1986, for cough and flu complications. The other questions were answered in the negative (Rollo, p. 53). Petitioner discovered that two weeks prior to his application for insurance, the insured was examined and confined at the Lung Center of the Philippines, where he was diagnosed for renal failure. During his confinement, the deceased was subjected to urinalysis, ultra-sonography and hematology tests. On November 17, 1988, respondent Bernarda Bacani and her husband, respondent Rolando Bacani, filed an action for specific performance against petitioner with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 191, Valenzuela, Metro Manila. Petitioner filed its answer with counterclaim and a list of exhibits consisting of medical records furnished by the Lung Center of the Philippines. On January 14, 1990, private respondents filed a "Proposed Stipulation with Prayer for Summary Judgment" where they manifested that they "have no evidence to refute the documentary evidence of concealment/misrepresentation by the decedent of his health condition (Rollo, p. 62). Petitioner filed its Request for Admissions relative to the authenticity and due execution of several documents as well as allegations regarding the health of the insured. Private respondents failed to oppose said request or reply thereto, thereby rendering an admission of the matters alleged. Petitioner then moved for a summary judgment and the trial court decided in favor of private respondents. In ruling for private respondents, the trial court concluded that the facts concealed by the insured were made in good faith and under a belief that they need not be disclosed. Moreover, it held that the health history of the insured was immaterial since the insurance policy was "non-medical". Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial court. The appellate court ruled that petitioner cannot avoid its obligation by claiming concealment because the cause of death was unrelated to the facts concealed by the insured. It also sustained the finding of the trial court that matters relating to the health history of the insured were irrelevant since petitioner waived the medical examination prior to the approval and issuance of the insurance policy. Moreover, the appellate court agreed with the trial court that the policy was "non-medical" (Rollo, pp. 4-5). We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. The terms of the contract are clear. The insured is specifically required to disclose to the insurer matters relating to his health. The information which the insured failed to disclose were material and relevant to the approval and issuance of the insurance policy. The matters concealed would have definitely affected petitioner's action on his application, either by approving it with the corresponding adjustment for a higher premium or rejecting the same. Moreover, a disclosure may have warranted a medical examination of the insured by petitioner in order for it to reasonably assess the risk involved in accepting the application. In Vda. de Canilang v. Court of Appeals, 223 SCRA 443 (1993), we held that materiality of the information withheld does not depend on the state of mind of the insured. Neither does it depend on the actual or physical events which ensue. Thus, "good faith" is no defense in concealment. The insured's failure to disclose the fact that he was hospitalized for

two weeks prior to filing his application for insurance, raises grave doubts about his bonafides. It appears that such concealment was deliberate on his part. The argument, that petitioner's waiver of the medical examination of the insured debunks the materiality of the facts concealed, is untenable. We reiterate our ruling in Saturnino v. Philippine American Life Insurance Company, 7 SCRA 316 (1963), that " . . . the waiver of a medical examination [in a non-medical insurance contract] renders even more material the information required of the applicant concerning previous condition of health and diseases suffered, for such information necessarily constitutes an important factor which the insurer takes into consideration in deciding whether to issue the policy or not . . . " Anent the finding that the facts concealed had no bearing to the cause of death of the insured, it is well settled that the insured need not die of the disease he had failed to disclose to the insurer. It is sufficient that his non-disclosure misled the insurer in forming his estimates of the risks of the proposed insurance policy or in making inquiries (Henson v. The Philippine American Life Insurance Co., 56 O.G. No. 48 [1960]). We, therefore, rule that petitioner properly exercised its right to rescind the contract of insurance by reason of the concealment employed by the insured. [G.R. No. 125678. March 18, 2002] PHILAMCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JULITA TRINOS, respondents. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Ernani Trinos, deceased husband of respondent Julita Trinos, applied for a health care coverage with petitioner Philamcare Health Systems, Inc. In the standard application form, he answered no to the following question: Have you or any of your family members ever consulted or been treated for high blood pressure, heart trouble, diabetes, cancer, liver disease, asthma or peptic ulcer? (If Yes, give details).[1] The application was approved for a period of one year from March 1, 1988 to March 1, 1989. Accordingly, he was issued Health Care Agreement No. P010194. Under the agreement, respondent’s husband was entitled to avail of hospitalization benefits, whether ordinary or emergency, listed therein. He was also entitled to avail of “out-patient benefits” such as annual physical examinations, preventive health care and other out-patient services. Upon the termination of the agreement, the same was extended for another year from March 1, 1989 to March 1, 1990, then from March 1, 1990 to June 1, 1990. The amount of coverage was increased to a maximum sum of P75,000.00 per disability.[2] During the period of his coverage, Ernani suffered a heart attack and was confined at the Manila Medical Center (MMC) for one month beginning March 9, 1990. While her husband was in the hospital, respondent tried to claim the benefits under the health care agreement. However, petitioner denied her claim saying that the Health Care Agreement was void. According to petitioner, there was a concealment regarding Ernani’s medical history. Doctors at the MMC allegedly discovered at the time of Ernani’s confinement that he was hypertensive, diabetic and asthmatic, contrary to his answer in the application form. Thus, respondent paid the hospitalization expenses herself, amounting to about P76,000.00. After her husband was discharged from the MMC, he was attended by a physical therapist at home. Later, he was admitted at the Chinese General Hospital. Due to financial difficulties, however, respondent brought her husband home again. In the morning of April 13, 1990, Ernani had fever and was feeling very weak.

Respondent was constrained to bring him back to the Chinese General Hospital where he died on the same day. On July 24, 1990, respondent instituted with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 44, an action for damages against petitioner and its president, Dr. Benito Reverente, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 90-53795. She asked for reimbursement of her expenses plus moral damages and attorney’s fees. After trial, the lower court ruled against petitioners, viz: On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court but deleted all awards for damages and absolved petitioner Reverente.[4] Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. [5] Hence, petitioner brought the instant petition for review, raising the primary argument that a health care agreement is not an insurance contract; hence the “incontestability clause” under the Insurance Code[6] does not apply. Petitioner argues that the agreement grants “living benefits,” such as medical check-ups and hospitalization which a member may immediately enjoy so long as he is alive upon effectivity of the agreement until its expiration one-year thereafter. Petitioner also points out that only medical and hospitalization benefits are given under the agreement without any indemnification, unlike in an insurance contract where the insured is indemnified for his loss. Moreover, since Health Care Agreements are only for a period of one year, as compared to insurance contracts which last longer,[7] petitioner argues that the incontestability clause does not apply, as the same requires an effectivity period of at least two years. Petitioner further argues that it is not an insurance company, which is governed by the Insurance Commission, but a Health Maintenance Organization under the authority of the Department of Health. In the case at bar, the insurable interest of respondent’s husband in obtaining the health care agreement was his own health. The health care agreement was in the nature of non-life insurance, which is primarily a contract of indemnity.[9] Once the member incurs hospital, medical or any other expense arising from sickness, injury or other stipulated contingent, the health care provider must pay for the same to the extent agreed upon under the contract. The answer assailed by petitioner was in response to the question relating to the medical history of the applicant. This largely depends on opinion rather than fact, especially coming from respondent’s husband who was not a medical doctor. Where matters of opinion or judgment are called for, answers made in good faith and without intent to deceive will not avoid a policy even though they are untrue.[14] Thus, (A)lthough false, a representation of the expectation, intention, belief, opinion, or judgment of the insured will not avoid the policy if there is no actual fraud in inducing the acceptance of the risk, or its acceptance at a lower rate of premium, and this is likewise the rule although the statement is material to the risk, if the statement is obviously of the foregoing character, since in such case the insurer is not justified in relying upon such statement, but is obligated to make further inquiry. There is a clear distinction between such a case and one in which the insured is fraudulently and intentionally states to be true, as a matter of expectation or belief, that which he then knows, to be actually untrue, or the impossibility of which is shown by the facts within his knowledge, since in such case the intent to deceive the insurer is obvious and amounts to actual fraud.[15] (Underscoring ours) The fraudulent intent on the part of the insured must be established to warrant rescission of the insurance contract.[16] Concealment as a defense for the health care provider or insurer to avoid liability is an affirmative defense and the duty to establish such defense by satisfactory and convincing evidence rests upon the provider or insurer. In any case, with or without the authority to investigate, petitioner is liable for claims made under the contract. Having assumed a responsibility under the agreement, petitioner is bound to answer the same to the extent agreed upon.

In the end, the liability of the health care provider attaches once the member is hospitalized for the disease or injury covered by the agreement or whenever he avails of the covered benefits which he has prepaid. G.R. No. 92492 June 17, 1993 THELMA VDA. DE CANILANG, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, respondents. FELICIANO, J.: On 18 June 1982, Jaime Canilang consulted Dr. Wilfredo B. Claudio and was diagnosed as suffering from "sinus tachycardia." The doctor prescribed the following fro him: Trazepam, a tranquilizer; and Aptin, a beta-blocker drug. Mr. Canilang consulted the same doctor again on 3 August 1982 and this time was found to have "acute bronchitis." On next day, 4 August 1982, Jaime Canilang applied for a "nonmedical" insurance policy with respondent Great Pacific Life Assurance Company ("Great Pacific") naming his wife, Thelma Canilang, as his beneficiary. 1 Jaime Canilang was issued ordinary life insurance Policy No. 345163, with the face value of P19,700, effective as of 9 August 1982. On 5 August 1983, Jaime Canilang died of "congestive heart failure," "anemia," and "chronic anemia." 2 Petitioner, widow and beneficiary of the insured, filed a claim with Great Pacific which the insurer denied on 5 December 1983 upon the ground that the insured had concealed material information from it. Petitioner then filed a complaint against Great Pacific with the Insurance Commission for recovery of the insurance proceeds. During the hearing called by the Insurance Commissioner, petitioner testified that she was not aware of any serious illness suffered by her late husband 3 and that, as far as she knew, her husband had died because of a kidney disorder. 4 A deposition given by Dr. Wilfredo Claudio was presented by petitioner. There Dr. Claudio stated that he was the family physician of the deceased Jaime Canilang 5 and that he had previously treated him for "sinus tachycardia" and "acute bronchitis." 6 Great Pacific for its part presented Dr. Esperanza Quismorio, a physician and a medical underwriter working for Great Pacific. 7 She testified that the deceased's insurance application had been approved on the basis of his medical declaration. 8 She explained that as a rule, medical examinations are required only in cases where the applicant has indicated in his application for insurance coverage that he has previously undergone medical consultation and hospitalization. 9 In a decision dated 5 November 1985, Insurance Commissioner Armando Ansaldo ordered Great Pacific to pay P19,700 plus legal interest and P2,000.00 as attorney's fees. On appeal by Great Pacific, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the Insurance Commissioner and dismissed Thelma Canilang's complaint and Great Pacific's counterclaim. The Court of Appealed found that the use of the word "intentionally" by the Insurance Commissioner in defining and resolving the issue agreed upon by the parties at pre-trial before the Insurance Commissioner was not supported by the evidence; that the issue agreed upon by the parties had been whether the deceased insured, Jaime Canilang, made a material concealment as the state of his health at the time of the filing of insurance application, justifying respondent's denial of the claim. The Court of Appeals also found that the failure of Jaime Canilang to disclose previous medical consultation and treatment constituted material information which should have been communicated to Great Pacific to enable the latter to make proper inquiries. The information concealed must be information which the concealing party knew and "ought to [have] communicate[d]," that is to say, information which was "material to the contract."

We agree with the Court of Appeals that the information which Jaime Canilang failed to disclose was material to the ability of Great Pacific to estimate the probable risk he presented as a subject of life insurance. Had Canilang disclosed his visits to his doctor, the diagnosis made and medicines prescribed by such doctor, in the insurance application, it may be reasonably assumed that Great Pacific would have made further inquiries and would have probably refused to issue a nonmedical insurance policy or, at the very least, required a higher premium for the same coverage. 15 The materiality of the information withheld by Great Pacific did not depend upon the state of mind of Jaime Canilang. A man's state of mind or subjective belief is not capable of proof in our judicial process, except through proof of external acts or failure to act from which inferences as to his subjective belief may be reasonably drawn. Neither does materiality depend upon the actual or physical events which ensue. Materiality relates rather to the "probable and reasonable influence of the facts" upon the party to whom the communication should have been made, in assessing the risk involved in making or omitting to make further inquiries and in accepting the application for insurance; that "probable and reasonable influence of the facts" concealed must, of course, be determined objectively, by the judge ultimately. The insurance Great Pacific applied for was a "non-medical" insurance policy. In Saturnino v. Philippine-American Life Insurance Company, 16 this Court held that: . . . if anything, the waiver of medical examination [in a non-medical insurance contract] renders even more material the information required of the applicant concerning previous condition of health and diseases suffered, for such information necessarily constitutes an important factor which the insurer takes into consideration in deciding whether to issue the policy or not . . . . 17 (Emphasis supplied) The Insurance Commissioner had also ruled that the failure of Great Pacific to convey certain information to the insurer was not "intentional" in nature, for the reason that Jaime Canilang believed that he was suffering from minor ailment like a common cold. Section 27 of the Insurance Code of 1978 as it existed from 1974 up to 1985, that is, throughout the time range material for present purposes, provided that: Sec. 27. A concealment entitles the injured party to rescind a contract of insurance. The preceding statute, Act No. 2427, as it stood from 1914 up to 1974, had provided: Sec. 26. A concealment, whether intentional or unintentional, entitles the injured party to rescind a contract of insurance. (Emphasis supplied) Upon the other hand, in 1985, the Insurance Code of 1978 was amended by B.P. Blg. 874. This subsequent statute modified Section 27 of the Insurance Code of 1978 so as to read as follows: Sec. 27. A concealment whether intentional or unintentional entitles the injured party to rescind a contract of insurance. (Emphasis supplied) The unspoken theory of the Insurance Commissioner appears to have been that by deleting the phrase "intentional or unintentional," the Insurance Code of 1978 (prior to its amendment by B.P. Blg. 874) intended to limit the kinds of concealment which generate a right to rescind on the part of the injured party to "intentional concealments." This argument is not persuasive. As a simple matter of grammar, it may be noted that "intentional" and "unintentional" cancel each other out. The net result therefore of the phrase "whether intentional or unitentional" is precisely to leave unqualified the term "concealment." Thus, Section 27 of

the Insurance Code of 1978 is properly read as referring to "any concealment" without regard to whether such concealment is intentional or unintentional. The phrase "whether intentional or unintentional" was in fact superfluous. The deletion of the phrase "whether intentional or unintentional" could not have had the effect of imposing an affirmative requirement that a concealment must be intentional if it is to entitle the injured party to rescind a contract of insurance. The restoration in 1985 by B.P. Blg. 874 of the phrase "whether intentional or unintentional" merely underscored the fact that all throughout (from 1914 to 1985), the statute did not require proof that concealment must be "intentional" in order to authorize rescission by the injured party. In any case, in the case at bar, the nature of the facts not conveyed to the insurer was such that the failure to communicate must have been intentional rather than merely inadvertent. For Jaime Canilang could not have been unaware that his heart beat would at times rise to high and alarming levels and that he had consulted a doctor twice in the two (2) months before applying for non-medical insurance. Indeed, the last medical consultation took place just the day before the insurance application was filed. In all probability, Jaime Canilang went to visit his doctor precisely because of the discomfort and concern brought about by his experiencing "sinus tachycardia." We find it difficult to take seriously the argument that Great Pacific had waived inquiry into the concealment by issuing the insurance policy notwithstanding Canilang's failure to set out answers to some of the questions in the insurance application. Such failure precisely constituted concealment on the part of Canilang. Petitioner's argument, if accepted, would obviously erase Section 27 from the Insurance Code of 1978. G.R. No. 48049 June 29, 1989 EMILIO TAN, JUANITO TAN, ALBERTO TAN and ARTURO TAN, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, respondents. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: On September 23,1973, Tan Lee Siong, father of herein petitioners, applied for life insurance in the amount of P 80,000.00 with respondent company. Said application was approved and Policy No. 1082467 was issued effective November 6,1973, with petitioners the beneficiaries thereof (Exhibit A). On April 26,1975, Tan Lee Siong died of hepatoma (Exhibit B). Petitioners then filed with respondent company their claim for the proceeds of the life insurance policy. However, in a letter dated September 11, 1975, respondent company denied petitioners' claim and rescinded the policy by reason of the alleged misrepresentation and concealment of material facts made by the deceased Tan Lee Siong in his application for insurance (Exhibit 3). The premiums paid on the policy were thereupon refunded . Alleging that respondent company's refusal to pay them the proceeds of the policy was unjustified and unreasonable, petitioners filed on November 27, 1975, a complaint against the former with the Office of the Insurance Commissioner, docketed as I.C. Case No. 218. After hearing the evidence of both parties, the Insurance Commissioner rendered judgment on August 9, 1977, dismissing petitioners' complaint. (Rollo, pp. 91-92) The Court of Appeals dismissed ' the petitioners' appeal from the Insurance Commissioner's decision for lack of merit. A. The conclusion in law of respondent Court that respondent insurer has the right to rescind the policy contract when insured is

already dead is not in accordance with existing law and applicable jurisprudence. B. The conclusion in law of respondent Court that respondent insurer may be allowed to avoid the policy on grounds of concealment by the deceased assured, is contrary to the provisions of the policy contract itself, as well as, of applicable legal provisions and established jurisprudence. C. The inference of respondent Court that respondent insurer was misled in issuing the policy are manifestly mistaken and contrary to admitted evidence. (Rollo, p. 7) The petitioners contend that the respondent company no longer had the right to rescind the contract of insurance as rescission must allegedly be done during the lifetime of the insured within two years and prior to the commencement of action. The contention is without merit. According to the petitioners, the Insurance Law was amended and the second paragraph of Section 48 added to prevent the insurance company from exercising a right to rescind after the death of the insured. The so-called "incontestability clause" precludes the insurer from raising the defenses of false representations or concealment of material facts insofar as health and previous diseases are concerned if the insurance has been in force for at least two years during the insured's lifetime. The phrase "during the lifetime" found in Section 48 simply means that the policy is no longer considered in force after the insured has died. The key phrase in the second paragraph of Section 48 is "for a period of two years." As noted by the Court of Appeals, to wit: The policy was issued on November 6,1973 and the insured died on April 26,1975. The policy was thus in force for a period of only one year and five months. Considering that the insured died before the two-year period had lapsed, respondent company is not, therefore, barred from proving that the policy is void ab initio by reason of the insured's fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation. Moreover, respondent company rescinded the contract of insurance and refunded the premiums paid on September 11, 1975, previous to the commencement of this action on November 27,1975. (Rollo, pp. 99-100) The petitioners contend that there could have been no concealment or misrepresentation by their late father because Tan Lee Siong did not have to buy insurance. He was only pressured by insistent salesmen to do so. It would be unjust if, having been subjected to the whirlwind pressure of insurance salesmanship this Court itself has long denounced, the assured who dies within the two-year period, should stand charged of fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation." (p. 142, Rollo) The insurer has two years from the date of issuance of the insurance contract or of its last reinstatement within which to contest the policy, whether or not, the insured still lives within such period. After two years, the defenses of concealment or misrepresentation, no matter how patent or well founded, no longer lie. Congress felt this was a sufficient answer to the various tactics employed by insurance companies to avoid liability. The petitioners' interpretation would give rise to the incongruous situation where the beneficiaries of an insured who dies right after taking out and paying for a life insurance policy, would be allowed to collect on the policy even if the insured fraudulently concealed material facts. The petitioners argue that no evidence was presented to show that the medical terms were explained in a layman's language to the insured. They state that the insurer should have presented its two medical field examiners as witnesses. Moreover, the petitioners allege that the policy intends that the medical

examination must be conducted before its issuance otherwise the insurer "waives whatever imperfection by ratification." The same is not well taken. The deceased, by affixing his signature on the application form, affirmed the correctness of all the entries and answers appearing therein. It is but to be expected that he, a businessman, would not have affixed his signature on the application form unless he clearly understood its significance. For, the presumption is that a person intends the ordinary consequence of his voluntary act and takes ordinary care of his concerns. [Sec. 5(c) and (d), Rule 131, Rules of Court]. The evidence for respondent company shows that on September 19,1972, the deceased was examined by Dr. Victoriano Lim and was found to be diabetic and hypertensive; that by January, 1973, the deceased was complaining of progressive weight loss and abdominal pain and was diagnosed to be suffering from hepatoma, (t.s.n. August 23, 1976, pp. 8-10; Exhibit 2). Another physician, Dr. Wenceslao Vitug, testified that the deceased came to see him on December 14, 1973 for consolation and claimed to have been diabetic for five years. (t.s.n., Aug. 23,1976, p. 5; Exhibit 6) Because of the concealment made by the deceased of his consultations and treatments for hypertension, diabetes and liver disorders, respondent company was thus misled into accepting the risk and approving his application as medically standard (Exhibit 5C) and dispensing with further medical investigation and examination (Exhibit 5-A). For as long as no adverse medical history is revealed in the application form, an applicant for insurance is presumed to be healthy and physically fit and no further medical investigation or examination is conducted by respondent company. (t.s.n., April 8,1976, pp. 6-8). (Rollo, pp. 9698)

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close