PM’s Call To Bank Negara Hailed By The Consumer Association of Penang

The proposed new basic motor insurance coverage for third party injuries and deaths involved so many interested parties.

Consumer associations, the public at large and especially drivers of old cars, which normally are covered by 3rd party insurance coverage. The number involved in the above scheme may run into thousands, if not millions of people.

If indeed it’s true so many people are involved in it, why then has Bank Negara chosen then not to consider it fit to consult the interested parties before drafting the proposed scheme?

The new scheme is said to have far reaching effects to the public. As such, there should be proper disclosure by Bank Negara and meaningful discussions and consultations with all parties concerned who are stakeholders.

In a televised interview held recently, the Prime Minister said the above consultation was necessary before Bank Negara, who incidentally are acting on behalf of the government, before a commitment is made to agree to the new policy.

Consumer Association of Penang (C.A.P.) legal adviser, Jesica Binwani, reiterated it looks as if the P.M. was luckily able to grasp what C.A.P and other interested parties have been trying to say all this while.

For those who are still in the dark regarding this new proposal for basic motor insurance for all third party injuries and deaths, under the new scheme, motor vehicle accident victims may only be compensated for injuries.

It is said they will no longer be entitled for other claims such as loss of current and future income. Third party insurance does not only cover drivers of old cars which currently run into the thousands, if not millions of drivers, but it should be borne in mind also, it involves motorcycle riders as well.

Most motorcycle riders are youths, school children, kampung folks and low income factory workers. The impact on this group of people is immense.

Thanks to the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, the P.M.’s call to Bank Negara, or directive to it if you may, is very timely and may have averted a disaster of colossal magnitude.

The Volkswagen Club of Malaysia alone is reported to have a membership of some 30,000 members. It should be remembered each and every one of them has a vested interest or locus standi in this new basic motor insurance coverage scheme which Bank Negara is attempting to bull doze through.

As responsible citizens, you decide for yourselves if we should allow such irresponsible behavior on the part of Bank Negara to take place.

We sincerely hope with proper consultations and discussions between all parties involved, an acceptable format will eventually be reached. A word of thanks to the Consumer Association of Penang for doing its duty to the general public.

By | 2012-09-21T22:26:39+08:00 May 28th, 2010|Auto Insurance|2 Comments

About the Author:


  1. Guest October 22, 2010 at 12:34 am - Reply

    If you know what happened to many unfortune accident victims who had gone through hell afer an accident sitting in a passenger then was played out by lawyers an insurance company. Please lookup thye article by american Conumer’s Association. “Insurance Company Delays, Confuses & Denies”.

    This is a happening everday.
    1. Passenger injured or crippled
    2. Crippled passenger finds a lawyer to file the claim
    3. Lawyer tells him, he need not to worry, he is a passenger. It’s
    a 99% case.
    4. The lawyer firm told the victim that both vehicles is insured by KURMIA
    when in reality, the Lorry was insured Kurmia while the car by Umiasia.
    4. Many years later, outside he courtroom duing his the hearing, that liability is
    on the car he rode in and he will only get ex-gratia RM10,000 and high
    chance the case may get dismissed. (At this point the insurance had not
    offerred anything, where is the RM10,000 coming from?)
    5. The poor crippeld started to panick and asked for a copy of the case
    documents, they lawyer refused and kept him in the dark.
    6. His lawyer dished out the story, “The Lorry who knocked the vehicle you are
    a passenger in is 100% in the right and the vehicle you were are
    passenger in does not have passenger coverage and since it does not
    have passenger, the car’s insurance compan is not duty bound to pay you a
    single cent.
    6. Now that the case is 7 years, and with no document on hand, It would be
    hard to relate his case to the new lawyer.
    7. The lawyer feeds the crippled’s information to the defence lawyers.
    8. Is it possible that the lawyer received a payment from the insurance
    company to wreck the case?
    9. The judge perhaps felt something is not quite right and ordered both
    insurance company lawyers and the victim’s lawyer to appear in court. A
    mutual agreement of 20-80% liability was then achieved. A settlement
    sum of RM50,000 was offered by Kurmia and then Umiasia kept quiet.
    10. Kurmia based on the consent judgement of 20-80% offered RM50,000
    being 20% of the 100%(RM250,000).
    11. The lawyer tells the victim to take the RM50,000 being final offer. The
    victim was not informed of the progress of the file nor know who the
    lawyer sued and definately did not know about the RM250,0000 and 20-
    80% .
    12. What is going to happen to the balance of 80% payment from Umiasia?
    Could the lawyer the split that amount with the insurance or anoteh
    13. Someone lodged a report with the authorities and the Insurance
    company got quiried and denied they
    15. She also did not turn up for court after that
    14. The lawyer then files a motion to discharge herself with a supporting
    affidavit which she claimed that the passenger tried to defame her and
    threatened with a law suit and then in the afidavit, she wrote it is her
    professional opinion that the car her client rode in is totally liable.
    The question is:

    1. Has Umiasia said, “Your car did not have have passenger liability policy” which is an add-on to the standard policy, is trying to confuse the public?
    In this case the it isthe mandatory THIRD PARTY POLICY of the car and lorry is the one that is covering the passenger. Anyone being injured by the driver is consideed a thrid party despite in or outside of the car(For example, husband caused wife to be injured driving into a coconut tree, of course the wife will sue the husband and if they have passenegr liability, they will sue upto the maximum sum they insured and the balance will have to come from the husband but if they do not have a passenger cover policy then they will be covered by the THRID PARTY POLICY which is mandatory by government.
    So a passenger can successfully claim from either side FULLY and not proportioned by the liability. There are cases wih he liability was never established. The definition of THIRD PARTY and it’s coverage is the key to unravle this mass intended confusion and deception.

    The S10 in british law being our 80(1) in Malaysian Trafic Ordinance which clearly spells this out and was in place to prevent insurance company to insert confusing terms and condition to defeat the THIRD PARTY POLICY coverage. The law also clearly said that insurance coverage must be full and effective. The THIRD PARTY POLICY is now illusory and many unfortunate victims were crippeld for life due to a denied claim and had no money for then time-sensitive much needed treatment. Some even died. This is shockingly happening in Malaysia now.

    Let’s go through it again:
    A passenger rode in his friend’s car and had a head-on collision with a lorry. The car avoided another car and went into the lorry’s lane and in it’s way back into it’s rightful lane, was hit by a heavily loaded speeding on-coming lorry. Their car being a kancil 660, was thown back about 60 feet and swirled around and then landed in the other side of the road.

    1. Kurmia said the car was totally liable and Umiasia asaid the car did not buy extra/optional passenger coverage and hence they will deny the claim. This leaves the poor injured and crippeld victim with nothing.

    2. Cass like that when appealed to high court or supreme most often than not is granted and won. The leraned judges always says the same thing, “He is just an innocent victim riding in the car which did not contribute in anyway to the accident and it is only fair not to pealise him or propotion his claim to the liability since he is faultless and thefore his claim must be full and un proportioned.

    3. Will the Malaysian Government allow this making virtually the other malaysian car th most unsafe vehicle to be in?

    4. Will Bank negara allow such a sitution and approve the insurance policy?

    Of course not! This mass hypnotism and parlour trick is done by the insurance company for commercial purpose. However, while several lawyers clearly understand this when the do appeals for cases that was unsatisfactorily decided, many other lawyers are saying, “No passenger Coverage then theywill not pay you!”. Are they wrong or simpy trying to telling part f the story?

    Some lawyers will say, ” Since no passenger coverage on the car you were in, then you will jus have to take whatever the other side gives you!” Agin are they wrong? We’ll they are again telling half truth. For the law requires the claim to be 100%, therefor insurance A will get the other portion from Insurance be and pull them in by notice if victim’s lawyer did not sue both sides. To get maximum protection, the passenger must sue both side(both drivers and if the driver is dead, then the insurance company). Proportion is only applicable if the victim is the owner or driver. A passenger is faultless and will make a successful claim either way.

    Then the next question is that if a laywer makes a mistake of not sueing both sides, absent in court and misinform the client; would this fall uder professional negligence, legal mischief or curruption.

    Since even lawyers seemed to be confused over this. The best answer would be from Bank negara itself since they regulate the insurance industry.

    This is not a new problem. In the USA it is a common one.
    1. Lawyer gives the settlement portion frm insurance A and splits the portion from insurance B with the insurance company or it’s lawyer.

    2. Fortunately American is smart enough to see that it would be crazy for third paty coverage not covering a car’s own passenger. Perhaps, the insurance companies thin we are all stupid. Many lowly educated people ended up with a fraction of what they are entitled to. People used to think that they shold trust their own lawyers and leave it o them for the are the experts. What do you think now?


    1. Ask Bank Negara directly fo the definition of THRID PARTY and it’s coverage
    2. Do a survey and asked lawyers and see how many opined differently.

    * I will be having a bloggers dinner and dialogue in Sri Perdana with the PM and I will him know that I have informed the consumers association of this matter. THIS WILL BE A SHOCKER STORY IN YOUR CONSUMERS PAPER!

    • Cikgu Yap October 22, 2010 at 9:15 pm - Reply

      The article is very helpful. Thank you.

Leave A Comment