You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

September 7, 2012

Taking a Look at Myths and Truths in the Life Insurance Industry

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

The business of life insurance today in Thailand is very competitive. Insurance companies advertise heavily via radio, TV, newspapers, websites, billboards, and other media channels, attempting to convince consumers that purchasing an insurance policy is a simple and quick thing to do.

For example, consumers may be able to purchase a life insurance policy over the internet or phone without meeting with an insurance broker in person. This convenient way of entering into insurance contracts leads to carelessness, whether intentionally or unintentionally, in disclosing all relevant facts. It also gives insurance companies the opportunity to refuse coverage or payment under a policy in the future.

In practice, the insurance company will ask the applicant to complete a form in which the applicant must declare all health and medical information and other important facts. Providing untrue or half-true information or failing to disclose important facts could release the insurance company from liability under the policy.

The insured person is responsible for disclosing all facts that would affect the insurer’s decision regarding coverage and insurance premiums. Section 865 of the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC) stipulates the following:

If at the time of making the contract, the assured, or, in case of insurance on life, the person upon whose life or death the payment of the sum payable depends, knowingly omits to disclose facts that would have induced the insurer to raise the premium or to refuse to enter into the contract or knowingly makes false statements in regard to such facts, the contract is voidable.

If such right of avoidance is not exercised within one month from the time when the insurer has knowledge of the ground of avoidance or within five years from the date of the contract, such right is extinguished.

The law does not define the facts that “would have induced the insurer to raise the premium or to refuse to enter into the contact.” However, the Supreme Court has decided that such facts include the following:

  • Health and medical information. The insurance company will demand a higher premium or refuse coverage if the insured person has a serious disease such as HIV/Aids, cancer, chronic renal disease, diabetes or cardiac disease.
  • Capacity to pay the premium. Capacity to pay the insurance premium is a factor that may affect an insurance company’s decision to cover an individual. The Supreme Court made this ruling in the context of a case where the insured person made false statements regarding his career and falsely confirmed he paid the premium himself. In fact, the insured was unemployed, and someone else paid the premium.

Health and medical information is the most important factor. However, there are limits on the instances when an insurance company can deny coverage for reasons of nondisclosure of medical information.

In Dika Decision 2295/2545, the Supreme Court determined the insurance company was still liable under the life insurance policy even though it found after the insured’s death that the insured did not reveal he suffered from hypoglycaemia and had been admitted to the hospital several times for that condition. The insurer informed the court that if it had known of the health condition, it would have refused to insure this person.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that revealing such a health problem would not have caused the insurance company to refuse coverage, as the insured’s death was due to a motorcycle accident and not derived from his health problem. In addition, the insurer’s doctor had completed a checkup of the insured person and made no comment.

An insurance company is also entitled to void or terminate a policy within one month from the date that the said information becomes known to the company, according to the second paragraph of Section 865 of the CCC. This provision was tested in Dika Decision 4379/2530, in which the Supreme Court held that the insurer was still liable under the policy, as it did not terminate or void the contract within one month after discovering the insured person had falsely confirmed he was healthy and did not disclose he had epilepsy.

If the insurer in this case had exercised its right of avoidance within one month from the date of knowing the false information, then it would not have been required to pay compensation under the insurance policy.

In sum, the consumer should take care to reveal all important information regarding his or her health or medical history and capacity to pay premiums before entering into any life insurance contract. This is to prevent the contract from being voidable.

The promptness and ease in obtaining a life insurance policy may not guarantee that the insured or beneficiary will be compensated promptly and easily when filing a claim for compensation under said policy.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 23, 2021
As many are already aware, following the change of government in Myanmar on February 1, 2021, a draft Cyber Security Law was proposed which attracted widespread criticism. However, less attention has been paid to significant amendments to two existing laws, some of which have a similar effect to parts of the draft Cyber Security Law. In other words, while the draft Cyber Security Law has not progressed further and is under public scrutiny, significant elements of it have found their way into law in Myanmar by other routes. Because these amendments are already law, it is very important that individuals and businesses in Myanmar understand their implications. Amendments to the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens The Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017), or the “Privacy Law,” was amended on February 13, 2021, less than two weeks after the military government came into power. These amendments chiefly address the power of the government to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests; to extend detention without judicial oversight; and to carry out broad surveillance and investigation activities that could intrude on individual privacy. The amendments accomplish this by suspending various sections of the Privacy Law for as long as the State Administration Council (the military body now governing Myanmar) is in power. The suspended sections include the following: Section 5: Search, seizure, and arrest without civilian observation The relevant part of Section 5 of the Privacy Law states, “The responsible authorities shall … when acting in accordance with existing law, not enter into a person’s residence or a room used as a residence, or a building, compound or building in a compound, for the purpose of search, seizure, or arrest, unless accompanied by minimum of two witnesses who should comprise Ward or Village Tract Administrators…”. The suspension
February 22, 2021
Following the recent imposition of sanctions on Myanmar individuals and companies by the US, the UK and Canada have now imposed new sanctions. As with the US sanctions, these new measures impact UK and Canadian citizens and companies, and non-UK and non-Canadian companies and citizens with interests in those jurisdictions. The EU has indicated that it is planning to issue similar sanctions in the near future. New UK Sanctions In addition to the 16 individuals already sanctioned by the UK government, on February 18, 2021, the UK government announced that three individuals have been sanctioned for serious human rights violations and are now subject to asset freezes and travel bans. The full list of Myanmar individuals and companies sanctioned by the UK is available on the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Breaches of UK financial sanctions are criminal offences punishable in the UK by up to 7 years imprisonment and heavy fines. New Canadian Sanctions Also on February 18, timed to coincide with the UK sanctions, new Canadian sanctions were imposed on nine individuals. As with the UK, Canada already had a number of individuals in the Myanmar military on its sanctions list, and the new additions bring the total number of individuals sanctioned by Canada to 54. All assets of these individuals in Canada are now frozen, and they are banned from travelling to Canada. Canadian businesses or entities may not do business with any of the 54 individuals. Full details of the impact of the sanctions are available on the Government of Canada’s website, as is a database of the Myanmar individuals and companies subject to them. Breach of Canadian sanctions carries with it up to 5 years’ imprisonment in Canada and/or a large fine. Other Countries The EU is reportedly drawing up sanctions
February 19, 2021
Insurance specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office have provided an update to the Thailand chapter of Thomson Reuters’ Practical Law guide to insurance and reinsurance. The guide is a Q&A-style overview of insurance and reinsurance law in 41 jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand contribution opens with a detailed overview of the insurance and reinsurance market in Thailand, including information on market trends, the available corporate structures, and relevant regulations. The Q&A is then separated into three main sections: Operating restrictions: licensing, ownership restrictions, ongoing requirements (compliance) and penalties for noncompliance, selling restrictions, and monitoring and disclosure requirements. Insurance and reinsurance policies: establishing an insurance claim, third party insurance claims, time limits, enforcement, remedies, and punitive damage claims. Other business concerns for insurance and reinsurance providers: insolvency, taxation, insurance and reinsurance dispute resolution, and legal reform. Practical Law produces a numbers of guides to key legal practice areas around the world for business lawyers. Tilleke & Gibbins contributes many overviews to these guides for all of the firm’s jurisdictions in Southeast Asia. To read the full Thailand insurance and reinsurance chapter, please visit the Practical Law website.
February 18, 2021
As you will no doubt know, on February 1, 2021, the Myanmar military declared a state of emergency in Myanmar for a period of one year. State Counsellor Daw Aung Sang Su Kyi was detained, as were the president and various significant political and civil leaders. Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw (Myanmar armed forces) has installed himself as chairman of the State Administration Council, the current administration. New sanctions The reaction of the Biden administration has been swift. On February 10, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14014, which provides bases to impose sanctions on individuals and companies deemed by the US to, among other things: operate in the defense sector of Myanmar; be responsible for policies that undermine democratic processes in Myanmar; have taken actions to undermine democratic processes or institutions, or prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of free speech, in Myanmar; or be a spouse or child of the foregoing. On the next day, February 11, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), imposed sanctions under the new executive order on ten individuals—including General Min Aung Hlaing—and three companies, including Cancri Gems & Jewelry Co, Myanmar Imperial Jade Co, and Myanmar Ruby Enterprise.  All such individuals and companies have now been designated on the US list of specially designated nationals (SDNs). Effect of sanctions As a result of such sanctions, the property of these individuals or companies that is located in the US or is under the possession or control of US companies and citizens is frozen, and US companies and citizens are generally prohibited from dealing deal with any such property.  Reportedly, roughly USD 1 billion of funds belonging to the individuals and companies blocked on February 11 are located in the US and thus now frozen. The SDN list As many