I refer to your report on the MCIS Zurich insurance policy wherein the policy was written on the life of Anthony Ponnusamy (deceased) and the claimant is his wife, Vasanthi Perumal.

There are two possibilities, depending on whether this was a life assurance policy or a personal accident policy.

A life assurance policy is generally indisputable, except in the case of fraud, after one year from inception. Thus, if the late Anthony Ponnusamy had completed the application form without any material non-disclosure, the onus would be on the insurance company to prove otherwise.

However, should the matter be brought to court, there is an obscure principle known as 'public policy' whereby the court will not 'assist a criminal to benefit from his criminal activities'. Thus, the claimant (the wife) will have her case thrown out and the insurance company will pocket the premiums paid in good faith by the deceased.

To me, this smacks of a Victorian prudery and class consciousness that needs to be judiciously stripped away. For example, Anthony Ponnusamy was not a convicted criminal. The fact that he was shot dead by the Royal Malaysian Police is not prima facie evidence of guilt. Remember that this is the same police force that has:

  • notched up a disproportionate number of killings of alleged criminals 

  • carried out racial profiling of citizens such as Ops Copperhead recently; and

  • detained several persons of relatively young age in lock-ups, who then died.

    • Former Inspector-General of Police Abdul Rahim Noor bashed up former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim in a lock-up until held back by others. A few days later, the ex-IGP blandly told the press that Anwar "is fine and in good hands".

    Anthony Ponnusamy can never personally benefit from the payment of the insurance contract into which he entered. He is dead. But to deprive his wife and family of the claim proceeds is to 'smash' that family forever.

    Is this the intention of the Victorian principle of 'public policy'? Perhaps in days when young boys of 12 were convicted of stealing bread for their poor families and sentenced to life imprisonment or 'transported' to Australia, the Victorians thought that the poor classes were basically vicious, thieving rascals and their families were all the same and should be smashed up. It was for the general good, you see.

    As long as Ponnusamy had correctly described his occupation and earnings and the sum assured applied for was within the normal limits that the insurance company applied to its customers, (and the insurer should be able to ascertain this to its satisfaction) why should they gleefully reject the claim and sapu (seize) the premiums?

    I trust that Vasanthi Perumal would immediately ask the Legal Aid Bureau, on behalf of her children and herself, to sue the company to pay. Just try. The bureau's services are free of charge.

    She should also make public the sum assured, her husband's job particulars and earnings as included in the insurance application and supported by any available documents. Let not the mighty company carry out its rejection secretively — expose it to the max in the media with a family photo and Ponnusamy's job description, income tax form J and EPF statements.

    As for the lawsuit, there is a chance, however slight, that she will be given some leeway, notwithstanding so-called 'public policy'.

    Let us not forget that this broken family may see its younger members being reduced to desperate measures for survival. Is this the desired result of 'public policy'?

    The insurance company, by the way has reinsurance support, and is not about to go bankrupt because of one or two small claims. It should pay up and take action at the sales and underwriting stages, on the integrity of its own agency force and the way applications are evaluated by its underwriters.

    That statement in the life assurance policy contract, that the policy "...shall be indisputable after one year, except in the case of fraud", is surely the biggest fraud perpetrated on the members of Ponnusamy's family because of the hidden practice of 'public policy' wielded merrily by the life insurers, aided and abetted by a cynical legal profession and lack of an independent and inquiring judiciary.

    However, if this was a personal accident policy, then there would be clauses excluding payment in the event of death arising from criminal activities. Again, the case remains unproven except for police allegations that he was suspected of criminal activities.

    In this connection, if the police can always accurately identify criminals from a group of persons with no criminal records, and society at large accepts such pinpointing, why bother to have the judiciary and the legal profession, prosecutors and defence counsel, or the law of evidence? Let's leave it all to the police!

    Personal accident insurance is usually renewable annually, which means there is an yearly requirement for the insured to disclose material changes to occupation and risk factors. He may have been a law-abiding citizen originally and then engaged in criminal activities only from Year Five. Failure to disclose this (but who would disclose?) would invalidate the policy. So the beneficiary's case would be weaker.

    Life assurance policies, however, require full disclosure upon inception only. If he accurately stated then that he held a lawful occupation and was insured for an appropriate sum, then the policy itself says that, after one year, the policy shall be indisputable.

    'Indisputable' — what does this word mean in English? Still, the grim principle of 'public policy' holds sway and seeks to deprive the innocent family of a chance of a decent life.

    Insurers should either seek to update the treatment of claims or educate the public why the young families of suspected criminals, possibly shot dead by trigger-happy police, must regretfully be disappointed.

    As Donne said: "No man is an island, entire of itself...and do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee".