Tay Eng Chuan v Ace Insurance Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tay Yong Kwang J
• Judgment Date: 05 December 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGHC 212
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2007
• Published date: 22 September 2008
• Plaintiff Counsel: Plaintiff in person
• Defendant Counsel: Teo Weng Kie and Lorraine Ho (Tan Kok Quan Partnership)
• Citation: [2007] SGHC 212

5 December 2007 Judgment reserved.

Tay Yong Kwang J:

Introduction

1 The plaintiff, a professional engineer since 1982 and a remisier since 1988, acted in person in these proceedings. He commenced this Originating Summons (“OS”) seeking the following:

(a) that pursuant to the note, “it remains open to Applicant to argue that his right to maintain an action in law in the courts survive the extinction of the right to proceed by way of arbitration”, entered by the Honourable Justice V K Rajah at Page 5 of the Notes of Argument dated 30 March 2007 for the Originating Summons No. 2254 of 2006/A and pursuant to the insurance policy Double Guarantee Protector Policy No. SMXXX-XXXX85, the plaintiff be allowed to proceed by way of an action in law in this Honourable Court to claim from the defendant the insurance benefit under the said insurance policy for the loss of sight in his left eye caused by an accident on 12 November 2002;

(b) that pursuant to the said insurance policy, the defendant do pay the plaintiff the sum of $300,000 being the insurance benefit for the loss of sight in the plaintiff’s left eye caused by an accident on 12 November 2002;

(c) that the defendant do pay the plaintiff interest on the said sum of insurance benefit at the rate of interest pursuant to Section 12 of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43) or such other rate of interest as this Honourable Court deems just and for the period of time from the date in 2003 when the defendant was informed by their medical experts that the plaintiff’s left eye is completely blind by legal definition to the date the said sum of insurance benefit is paid or such other period of time as this Honourable Court deems just; and

(d) that the costs of this application and such further or other relief to be ordered as this Honourable Court may deem fit.

2 In turn, the defendant took out SUMS 2829 of 2007 (“the SUMS”) for an order that:

1 the plaintiff’s Originating Summons filed on 6 June 2007 be struck out under Order 18, rule 19(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d) and (3) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322) and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court;

2 the costs of this application to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants forthwith; and

3 such further or other orders and/or relief as this Honourable Court deems fit.

It was stated in the SUMS that the ground for prayer 1 therein (to strike out the plaintiff’s OS) was that the prayers sought by the plaintiff in his OS disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that the further grounds for the said prayer 1 were set out in the defendant’s affidavit filed in support of the SUMS.

3 Both the OS and the SUMS were fixed for hearing at the same time on a normal summons hearing day. I granted the prayers sought in the SUMS and dismissed the OS with costs of $3,500 and reasonable disbursements to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.

The plaintiff’s case

4 On 12 November 2002, at about 1pm, the plaintiff was carrying a piece of wire mesh in his house. The wire mesh got caught between the wall and a pipe in the storeroom and hit his left eye. As a result, his left eye bled and he was conveyed to hospital in an ambulance. He had cornea laceration, iris laceration and traumatic cataract in his left eye. An emergency operation was performed the same day. He was subsequently discharged from hospital on 20 November 2002 but was re-admitted from 9 to 12 December 2002 for another operation to remove the lens of the left eye.

5 The plaintiff subsequently submitted claims on his policies with several insurance companies including the defendant. The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant was for the amount of $300,000 as the benefit under the Double Guarantee Protector Policy No. SMXXX-XXXX85 (“the insurance policy”) for the loss of sight in his left eye. A loss adjuster was appointed by the defendant to investigate the claim. The plaintiff was also examined by an eye specialist appointed by the defendant. That eye specialist confirmed that the plaintiff’s left eye was non-functional and was blind according to the World Health Organization definition and legal definition.

6 Two of the insurance companies (AXA and UOI) disputed the plaintiff’s claims. Both disputes proceeded to arbitration in 2003 and in 2004. The plaintiff was successful in the AXA arbitration. AXA applied to the High Court for leave to appeal against the arbitral award but leave was not granted. The UOI arbitration was kept in abeyance by consent to await the outcome of the AXA arbitration. However, UOI subsequently refused to abide by the outcome of the AXA arbitration and the UOI arbitration then proceeded and was concluded at the end of May 2007.

7 In June 2006, the plaintiff commenced an action to claim the benefit under another AXA insurance policy. AXA gave an undertaking to pay him the benefit within 7 days and was ordered by the High Court to pay the plaintiff pre-action and post-action interest on his claim.

8 The defendant admitted liability on 29 July 2003 and paid the plaintiff the Accidental Hospital Income Benefit under the insurance policy. It paid him $3,300 for the 11 days of hospitalization.

9 The insurance policy also provided two other benefits. For “total loss of lens in one eye”, 50% of the sum insured was payable. Similarly, for “total loss of sight in one eye”, 50% of the sum insured was payable. On 11 December 2003, the defendant paid the plaintiff $300,000 (being 50% of the sum insured and payable for the loss of lens in one eye). The defendant wanted him to sign a Discharge Voucher to acknowledge that the said payment was in full and final settlement of the claim in respect of Accidental Disability Benefit and any other benefits whatsoever that may be payable under the insurance policy as a result of the injury to his left eye and that he would waive all claims whatsoever that he might have under the insurance policy at that time. The plaintiff refused to sign the Discharge Voucher as it was clear to him that the defendant was attempting to make him forgo the benefit payable for the loss of sight in one eye. He eventually acknowledged receipt of a cheque for $300,000 from the defendant but wrote on the acknowledgement that he did not accept the contents of the defendant’s solicitors’ letter dated 11 December 2003 (which stated that the payment was in full and final settlement of the defendant’s liability under the insurance policy in respect of the plaintiff’s eye injury).

10 In January 2004, AXA obtained an order of court directing the plaintiff to attend another medical examination by its appointed eye specialist. On 29 January 2004, the defendant’s solicitors wrote to the plaintiff to state that they would review the matter upon receipt of the report on the further medical examination. However, upon receipt of the said report, the defendant did not review the matter but maintained that the $300,000 payment was in full and final settlement of the plaintiff’s claim.

11 On 23 May 2004, the plaintiff proposed that the defendant reconsider the claim after the conclusion of the AXA arbitration and that, if necessary, the dispute be referred to arbitration thereafter. The defendant refused the proposal.

12 As the plaintiff was very busy taking care of the AXA and UOI arbitration proceedings, he did not consider the insurance policy again until November 2006 when he applied to the High Court in Originating Summons No. 2254 of 2006 (“OS 2254”) for an order that the time for commencing arbitration proceedings be extended to 3 months after the conclusion of the UOI arbitration. OS 2254 was heard on 30 March 2007 by V K Rajah J. The learned judge dismissed the plaintiff’s application with costs fixed at $2,500 but added a note in his orders as follows:

(Note: It remains open to Applicant to argue that his right to maintain an action in law in the courts survive the extinction of the right to proceed by way of arbitration).

13 As stated above (at [8] and [9]), the insurance policy conferred 3 benefits on the plaintiff. The payment of $3,300 and $300,000 by the defendant discharged its liability in respect of two of them, leaving the third benefit of “total loss of sight in one eye” still outstanding. The “total loss of lens in one eye” benefit covered the physical loss of the lens. The eye may still have functional vision after the loss of the lens. The “total loss of sight in one eye” benefit covered the loss of functional vision of the eye. After the loss of functional vision, the lens in the...