The Agent-Ticked 'No' on a Hypertension Question
Mr Raza, 46, a textile exporter in Faisalabad, applies for a 10-year family takaful plan with sum covered PKR 12 million and annual contribution PKR 180,000. Agent Nadeem completes the application on a tablet. The medical questionnaire asks: 'Have you ever been treated for high blood pressure, chest pain, or heart disease?' Raza says he takes a 'small BP tablet sometimes' but has no chest pain. Nadeem ticks 'No' on the form and does not record the BP medicine, saying 'it will only delay the case'. Raza signs the declaration without reading it. Eight months later Raza dies of a myocardial infarction. The operator's investigation obtains pharmacy records showing hypertension treatment three years earlier and a treadmill test two years earlier. The widow submits a claim. The operator's claims committee is considering repudiation and refund of contributions; the agent says he 'saved the client from unnecessary medical tests'.
1. Was the undisclosed hypertension material? Analyse the duty of disclosure and the agent's role.
Read the worked answer
Issue: The answer 'No' was inaccurate, but the key question is whether the inaccuracy was material and who caused it.
Analysis: Materiality is judged by what a prudent underwriter would want to know. Treated hypertension and a treadmill test are material for a 46-year-old seeking PKR 12 million of cover. A prudent underwriter would at least have required medical evidence, and might have imposed a loading, exclusion or postponement. The duty of utmost good faith requires the applicant to disclose material facts, but an agent cannot hide behind the applicant's signature where the agent personally completed the form. Raza did disclose the BP medicine orally. Nadeem chose not to record it. That is a misrepresentation by the operator's representative, not merely a customer's omission.
The declaration Raza signed without reading does not automatically cure the problem. The operator must investigate what Nadeem knew, what he was trained to do, and whether he had authority to decide medical evidence. The 'saved the client' explanation is an admission that he deliberately suppressed a material fact.
Conclusion: The hypertension was material. The agent's conduct is a serious breach of underwriting and conduct rules, and the operator cannot treat this as a simple customer non-disclosure without examining its own responsibility.
2. What options does the operator have, and which is most defensible under the policy and Shariah principles?
Read the worked answer
Issue: The operator must decide whether to repudiate, pay, or compromise, while protecting the risk pool and treating the widow fairly.
Analysis: The policy and the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, may allow avoidance for material misrepresentation or non-disclosure, subject to the policy's contestability and other terms. A repudiation with refund of the fund value is one option. Paying the full claim is another. A middle option is to adjust the claim to what would have been offered had the hypertension been disclosed, for example a reduced sum covered or a loading, or to pay an ex gratia amount.
The crucial fact is that Raza orally told the agent about the BP medicine. If the agent deliberately recorded 'No', the operator had knowledge through its representative and should not rely on its own agent's concealment to defeat the widow. Shariah principles of fairness and avoiding unjust enrichment point against using a technical defence created by the operator's agent. The risk fund should not be depleted by a risk it never agreed to accept, but the remedy lies primarily against the agent who caused the loss.
Conclusion: The most defensible course is to pay the basic death benefit, or at least not to avoid the policy solely on the agent-completed answer, and to pursue the agent for breach of duty. If the Shariah board or legal advice concludes that the applicant also acted dishonestly, a proportionate adjustment may be considered. The decision and reasoning must be documented.
3. How should the operator communicate the decision to the widow, and what should happen to the agent?
Read the worked answer
Issue: The family is grieving and the agent's conduct has created a dispute that must be handled transparently.
Analysis: The operator should contact the widow promptly, in writing, explain the claim decision in plain language, identify the documents relied on, and offer a meeting. It should avoid pressure to sign a waiver and should explain the complaint and ombudsman routes. If the decision is to pay, the payment should be made to the nominee or legal heirs as advised, with proper discharge. If any part is declined, the letter should give specific reasons and the appeal route. Privacy and sensitivity are essential.
The agent should be suspended from new business pending investigation. The operator should obtain a written statement, review the tablet audit trail and training records, and consider termination of the agency, recovery of commission or losses, and reporting to the SECP if required. The agent should not be allowed to contact the widow to 'fix' the case. The investigation should also check whether the branch had a pattern of suppressing medical answers.
Conclusion: Communicate with the widow honestly and promptly, pay what is properly due, and deal with the agent through a documented disciplinary and recovery process. The wider lesson is that underwriting integrity depends on recording the client's actual answers.