You are on page 1of 2

THELMA VDA. DE CANILANG, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS: - June 18, 1982 Jaime Canilang was diagnosed by Dr. Claudio to have sinus tachycardia. He was directed by the doctor to take a tranquilizer (Trazepam) and a beta-blocker drug (Aptin). - August 3, 1982 Jaime consulted Dr. Claudio again and was diagnosed to have acute bronchitis. - August 4, 1982 Jaime applied for a nonmedical insurance policy with Great Pacific Life Assurance Company. He named his wife Thelma as his beneficiary. He was issue the policy with a face value of P19,700 effective August 9, 1982. - August 5, 1983 Jaime died of congestive heart failure, anemia and chronic anemia. Thelma filed her claim but the insurance company refused to grant it on the ground that Jaime had concealed information. - Thelma filed a complaint against Great Pacific to recover the insurance proceeds. She testified that she was not aware of her husbands ailments and that she thought he had died from a kidney disorder. - Great Pacific presented as witness Dr. Quismorio who testified that Jaimes insurance application was the basis of his medical declaration and she explained that an applicant was required to undergo medical examination only if the applicant had disclosed that he had previously been consulted with a doctor and had been hospitalized. - The Insurance Commissioner ordered Great Pacific to pay Thelma the insurance proceeds, including attorneys fees, holding that Jaimes illness was not that serious as to Great Pacifics decision to insure him and that there was no concealment on the part of Jaime with regard to his illness. ISSUES: 1. WON Jaime intentionally withheld information from Great Pacific 2. WON the information withheld would have been material to Great Pacifics decision to grant Jaime the insurance policy HELD: 1. Art. 27 of the 1978 Insurance Code reads that a concealment entitles the injured party to rescind a contract of insurance, which does not include the words whether intentional or unintentional from the previous statutes. The Insurance Commissioner relied on this deletion in arguing that the statute intended to limit the kinds of concealment which generate a right to rescind on the part of the injured party to "intentional concealments." - 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. > Jaime 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 two months before applying for non-medical insurance. > The last medical consultation took place just the day before the insurance application was filed. 2. The information which Jaime 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 the 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 non-medical insurance policy or, at the very least, required a higher premium for the same coverage. - As held in the case of Saturnino vs. Philippine-American Life Insurance, the waiver of medical examination in a non-medical insurance contract renders even more material the information inquired 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.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 16 October 1989 in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 08696 is hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to the costs.

SO ORDERED.

You might also like