Precedent No. 77/2025/AL was adopted by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court on December 24, 2025, and was promulgated under Decision No. 339a/QD-CA dated December 25, 2025, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
1. What is a precedent?
Precedents are arguments and rulings in legally effective judgments and decisions of the Courts regarding specific cases selected by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court and promulgated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court as precedents for Courts to study and apply in adjudication. (Article 1 of Resolution 04/2019/NQ-HDTP)
A selected precedent must meet the following criteria:
– Contain value in clarifying provisions of the law that have different interpretations; analyze and explain legal issues and events, and point out principles, handling directions, and legal norms to be applied in a specific case, or demonstrate equity toward issues not yet specifically prescribed by law;
– Possess standard characteristics;
– Have guiding value for the uniform application of law in adjudication.
2. Precedent No. 77/2025/AL regarding the violation of the obligation to provide information on critical illness status by the policyholder
2.1. Source of the precedent
Cassation Decision No. 37/2023/DS-GDT dated August 24, 2023, of the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the civil case “Dispute over an insurance contract” between the plaintiffs: Mr. Dang Ngoc M, Ms. Tran Thi T, Ms. Dang Ngoc Anh T1 and the defendant: Corporation V; persons with related rights and obligations: 05 persons.
Location of the precedent’s content:
Paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 14 of the “Court’s Assessment” section.
2.2. Overview of the precedent content
– Precedent situation:
In the insurance application, the policyholder fails to provide information about their critical illness status, despite clearly knowing they have this disease and having undergone medical examinations and treatments multiple times. During the term of the insurance contract, the policyholder dies due to the aforementioned critical illness.
– Legal solution:
In this case, the Court must determine that the policyholder violated the obligation to provide information on the critical illness status when entering into the life insurance contract, and the insurance enterprise is not liable for insurance responsibility.
Legal provisions related to the precedent:
Point b, Clause 2, Article 18 and Clause 2, Article 19 of the Law on Insurance Business of Vietnam 2000 (corresponding to point a, Clause 2, Article 21 and Clause 2, Article 22 of the Law on Insurance Business 2022, amended and supplemented in 2025).
Keywords of the precedent:
“Violation of the obligation to provide information”; “Critical illness status”; “Life insurance contract”; “Insurance responsibility”.
CASE CONTENT:
In the Petition dated October 8, 2016, and during the case resolution process, the plaintiffs Mr. Dang Ngoc M, Ms. Tran Thi T, and Ms. Dang Ngoc Anh T1 stated:
On June 17, 2014, and July 24, 2014, Mr. Dang Lam Quoc B (son of Mr. Dang Ngoc M, husband of Ms. Tran Thi T, father of Ms. Dang Ngoc Anh T1) filled out 03 insurance application forms to participate in insurance packages of Corporation V with Mr. B as the insured person, specifically:
– An Phat Tron Doi insurance application dated June 17, 2014, insurance value of 1,500,000,000 VND, whole-life insurance term. Insured: Mr. Dang Lam Quoc B, beneficiary: Ms. Tran Thi T. Mr. B paid a 1-year premium of 30,843,000 VND (Main insurance contract: 30,000,000 VND, supplementary product BV-NR17 – waiver of premium benefit for critical illnesses: 843,000 VND). On June 21, 2014, a representative of Corporation V had Mr. B undergo a health check at Binh Duong Private General Hospital. On June 25, 2014, Corporation V issued a notice of conditional insurance acceptance, requesting Mr. B to pay an additional 590,100 VND in premiums due to his health status. On June 27, 2014, Corporation V issued a notice of insurance acceptance for Mr. B.
– An Phat Hung Gia insurance application dated July 24, 2014, insurance value of 1,500,000,000 VND, 20-year insurance term. Insured: Mr. Dang Lam Quoc B, beneficiary: Mr. Dang Ngoc M. Mr. B paid a 1-year premium of 53,480,000 VND (Main insurance contract: 50,000,000 VND; supplementary product BV-NR15 – Critical illness insurance: 420,000 VND, supplementary product BV-NR16 – Surgery and outpatient treatment insurance: 1,215,000 VND, supplementary product BV-NR17 – Critical illness insurance: 1,845,000 VND. On July 29, 2014, Corporation V issued a notice of conditional insurance acceptance and requested Mr. B to pay an additional 2,436,000 VND (increased premium due to health status). On August 6, 2014, Corporation V notified the insurance acceptance for Mr. B.
– An Phat Tron Doi life insurance application dated July 24, 2014, insurance value of 2,500,000,000 VND, whole-life insurance term. Insured: Mr. Dang Lam Quoc B, beneficiary: Ms. Dang Ngoc Anh T1. Mr. B paid a 1-year premium of 50,983,800 VND (Main insurance contract: 48,000,000 VND; supplementary product BV-NR15 – Critical illness insurance: 420,000 VND, supplementary product BV-NR16 – Surgery and outpatient treatment insurance: 1,215,000 VND, supplementary product BV-NR17 – Critical illness insurance: 1,348,800 VND. On July 29, 2014, Corporation V issued a notice of conditional insurance acceptance (increased premium due to health status) and requested Mr. B to pay an additional 2,088,660 VND. On August 6, 2014, Corporation V notified the insurance acceptance and delivered the entire contract to Mr. B.
On March 12, 2015, Mr. B died, but Corporation V refused to pay the insurance money to the beneficiaries. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit requesting the Court to compel Corporation V to pay the plaintiffs the insurance amount for the beneficiaries, specifically: Mr. M and Ms. T 1,500,000,000 VND each, and Ms. T1 2,500,000,000 VND.
The defendant, Corporation V, stated: Corporation V agrees with the plaintiffs’ statements regarding the insurance contracts signed between Corporation V and Mr. Dang Lam Quoc B. However, before participating in the insurance, Mr. B suffered from poorly differentiated metastatic carcinoma and neuroendocrine carcinoma, but made a fraudulent declaration, violating the obligation to provide information, which falls under cases where insurance compensation is not granted. Therefore, Corporation V does not accept the plaintiffs’ claims.
In the First-instance Civil Judgment No. 134/2017/DS-ST dated September 25, 2017, the People’s Court of Thu Dau Mot City, Binh Duong Province decided:
Accept the claims of the plaintiffs Mr. Dang Ngoc M, Ms. Tran Thi T, and Ms. Dang Ngoc Anh T1 against the defendant Corporation V regarding the insurance contract dispute.
Compel Corporation V to pay insurance money of 1,500,000,000 VND to Mr. Dang Ngoc M, 1,500,000,000 VND to Ms. Tran Thi T, and 2,500,000,000 VND to Ms. Dang Ngoc Anh T1.
On October 9, 2017, Corporation V filed an appeal.
In the Protest Decision No. 30/QDKNPT-VKS-DS dated October 9, 2017, the Chief Procurator of the People’s Procuracy of Thu Dau Mot City, Binh Duong Province protested the aforementioned first-instance civil judgment.
In the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 47/2018/DS-PT dated March 6, 2018, the People’s Court of Binh Duong Province decided:
Terminate the appellate trial for the Protest Decision No. 30/QDKNPT-VKS-DS dated October 9, 2017, of the Chief Procurator of the People’s Procuracy of Thu Dau Mot City, Binh Duong Province.
Accept the appeal of Corporation V. Amend the first-instance civil judgment.
Reject the claims of the plaintiffs Mr. Dang Ngoc M, Ms. Tran Thi T, and Ms. Dang Ngoc Anh T1 against the defendant Corporation V regarding the insurance contract dispute.
On August 9, 2018, Mr. Dang Ngoc M, Ms. Tran Thi T, and Ms. Dang Ngoc Anh T1 filed a request for cassation review of the aforementioned appellate civil judgment.
In Decision No. 201/2021/KN-DS dated December 7, 2021, the Chief Justice of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City protested the aforementioned appellate civil judgment; proposed the Committee of Justices of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City to conduct a cassation trial to annul the appellate civil judgment and First-instance Civil Judgment No. 134/2017/DS-ST dated September 25, 2017, of the People’s Court of Thu Dau Mot City, Binh Duong Province; transfer the case file to the People’s Court of Thu Dau Mot City, Binh Duong Province for re-trial according to law.
In Cassation Decision No. 99/2022/DS-GDT dated April 6, 2022, the Committee of Justices of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City decided:
Accept the Cassation Protest Decision No. 201/2021/KN-DS dated December 7, 2021, of the Chief Justice of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City.
Annul Appellate Civil Judgment No. 47/2018/DS-PT dated March 6, 2018, of the People’s Court of Binh Duong Province and annul First-instance Civil Judgment No. 134/2017/DS-ST dated September 25, 2017, of the People’s Court of Thu Dau Mot City, Binh Duong Province. Transfer the case file to the People’s Court of Thu Dau Mot City, Binh Duong Province for re-trial according to law.
On June 17, 2022, Corporation V requested a cassation review of Cassation Decision No. 99/2022/DS-GDT dated April 6, 2022, of the Committee of Justices of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City.
In Protest Decision No. 06/QD-VKS-DS dated April 25, 2023, the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People’s Procuracy protested the aforementioned cassation decision of the Committee of Justices of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City; proposed the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court to conduct a cassation trial, annul Cassation Decision No. 99/2022/DS-GDT dated April 6, 2022, of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City, and uphold Appellate Civil Judgment No. 47/2018/DS-PT dated March 6, 2018, of the People’s Court of Binh Duong Province.
At the cassation trial, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy proposed the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court to accept the Protest Decision of the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People’s Procuracy.
COURT’S ASSESSMENT:
[1] On June 17, 2014, and July 24, 2014, Mr. Dang Lam Quoc B participated in the An Phat Tron Doi and An Phat Hung Gia insurance packages, the insured person was Mr. B, the insurance value for each application was 1,500,000,000 VND (premium of 30 million VND/year for 15 years, beneficiary Ms. Tran Thi T), 2,500,000,000 VND (premium of 48 million VND/year for 15 years, beneficiary Ms. Dang Ngoc Anh T1), and 1,500,000,000 VND (premium of 50 million VND/year for 20 years, beneficiary Mr. Dang Ngoc M).
[2] According to the Insurance Applications dated June 17, 2014, and July 24, 2014, in the sections for questions and answers about personal health status, Mr. B checked “x” in all “no” answer boxes, including question No. 17/A/II “Tumor (benign or malignant), cancer…”, question No. 27/C/II “In the past year, have you had a medical examination and/or any tests? Did you have to take many days off from school or work for medical treatment?” and question No. 30/C/II “Are you currently suffering from or undergoing treatment for any pathology?” After establishing the insurance applications, on June 21, 2014, Corporation V had Mr. B undergo a health check at Binh Duong Private General Hospital. According to the Health Check Conclusion Results at Binh Duong General Hospital dated June 21, 2014, Mr. B was the person providing health check information, including the question: “Have you ever had to stay in the hospital for treatment? When? Reason? What was the longest hospital stay? Medical or surgical treatment?”. Mr. B checked “x” in the “No” box and for this result, Mr. B committed that the information provided to Corporation V’s medical facility was completely full, truthful, and this information was considered supplementary information to the related insurance application and was signed.
[3] Documents in the case file show that Mr. Dang Lam Quoc B had undergone tests, health examinations, and medical treatment at many hospitals. Specifically:
[4] In Case Summary No. 670/KHTH-TTBA dated July 12, 2016, of Ho Chi Minh City Oncology Hospital, it is shown: Mr. B was hospitalized on May 13, 2014, with a medical history: 5 months of illness, abdominal pain, examined at People’s Hospital 115 diagnosed with abdominal lymph nodes; pathology: Poorly differentiated carcinoma metastatic to lymph nodes; the patient went to Singapore for 6 cycles of treatment; diagnosis: Systemic lymph node metastasis of unknown primary origin.
[5] In Dispatch No. 1135/BVUB-KHTH dated May 30, 2017, of Ho Chi Minh City Oncology Hospital, the hospital provided Mr. B’s entire medical record which also showed Mr. B had examinations and tests at various hospitals: International Neurosurgery Hospital with abdominal MRI results on September 11, 2013, concluding: Possible metastatic malignant lymph nodes. Pathology test result of People’s Hospital 115 on September 27, 2013, concluding: Mr. B had poorly differentiated Carcinoma, lymph node metastasis; Cho Ray Hospital with Pet-CT imaging results on June 2, 2014, concluding: Status of treated neuroendocrine cell K, current Pet-CT images show: Malignant lesions with increased metabolic activity at positions of the head and body of the pancreas, segment VII of the liver, peripancreatic lymph nodes, along the abdominal aorta, around renal vascular bundles, bilateral common internal and external iliac vascular bundles, and bilateral diaphragmatic crura, supraclavicular lymph node (L); compared with Pet-CT images on November 25, 2013, taken in Singapore, pancreatic lymph nodes were larger and showed more metabolic activity, liver lesions showed more metabolic activity, new lymph nodes appeared in the bilateral internal and external iliac vascular bundles, other lesions showed no significant change.
[6] On March 11, 2015, Mr. B entered Van Phuc General Hospital with respiratory tract infection, pneumonia; terminal-stage pancreatic K metastatic to liver and kidneys, transferred for emergency care to Binh Duong Provincial General Hospital. On the same day, Mr. B was admitted to Binh Duong Provincial General Hospital in a state of cardiovascular collapse, respiratory failure, pneumonia, terminal-stage pancreatic K metastatic to liver and kidneys. On March 12, 2015, Mr. B died. The cause of death was determined in the Death Certificate of the People’s Committee of T Commune, C District, Binh Duong Province: Death due to illness.
[7] In Dispatch No. 2624/BVUB-KHTH dated December 28, 2016, Ho Chi Minh City Oncology Hospital identified that Mr. B had metastatic carcinoma in many places of unknown primary origin, a highly malignant form of carcinoma, and the patient’s condition when discovered was terminal.
[8] Thus, there is a sufficient basis to affirm that before establishing the Insurance Application with Corporation V on June 17, 2014, and July 24, 2014, Mr. B was clearly aware of his illness, had participated in treatment at various hospitals both domestic and foreign for cancer, but did not honestly declare his health status at the time of insurance request and contract signing. Mr. B was undergoing treatment at Ho Chi Minh City Oncology Hospital (from May 13, 2014, to August 19, 2014, for neuroendocrine lymph node K). The fact that Corporation V requested an increased premium based on Mr. B’s health check results was for fatty liver, hepatitis B, and blood lipid metabolism disorders, unrelated to Mr. B’s cancer pathology.
[9] According to Article 4, An Phat Tron Doi Terms; Article 4, An Phat Hung Gia Terms, then “The policyholder is obligated to provide fully and honestly all information related to the insured person and the contract as requested by Corporation V and simultaneously bears full responsibility for the information provided. The fact that Corporation V conducts a health check for the insured person (if any) does not replace this obligation.”
[10] “Intentional violation of the obligation to provide information is understood as the policyholder providing inaccurate, dishonest declarations or concealing important information that, if known, Corporation V would not have accepted the insurance or would have accepted it with additional conditions as prescribed by Corporation V”.
[11] According to point b, Clause 2, Article 18 of the Law on Insurance Business 2000, the policyholder has the obligation to “Declare fully and honestly every detail related to the insurance contract as requested by the Insurance Enterprise”; Clause 1, Article 19 of the Law on Insurance Business stipulates: The policyholder is responsible for providing full information related to the insurance subject to the insurance enterprise. Therefore, there is a basis to determine that the policyholder Mr. Dang Lam Quoc B violated the obligation to provide information according to Article 4, An Phat Tron Doi Terms; Article 4, An Phat Hung Gia Terms, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Law on Insurance Business 2000. The first-instance court’s assessment that there was no basis to claim Mr. B declared dishonestly when participating in insurance contracts and no basis to conclude Mr. B violated the information provision obligation according to Clause 4.1 Article 4 of An Phat Tron Doi and An Phat Hung Gia Terms is incorrect. The appellate court’s determination that Mr. B violated the information provision obligation is grounded.
[12] According to Clause 2, Article 19 of the Law on Insurance Business 2000: “The insurance enterprise has the right to unilaterally suspend the implementation of the insurance contract and collect insurance premiums up to the time of suspension when the policyholder commits one of the following acts: a) Intentionally providing false information for the purpose of entering into the insurance contract to receive insurance payment or compensation; b) Failing to fulfill obligations in providing information to the insurance enterprise according to point c, Clause 2, Article 18 of this Law”.
[13] Article 4.2 of An Phat Hung Gia Terms and Article 4.2 of An Phat Tron Doi Terms stipulate: In case the policyholder intentionally violates the obligation to provide information, the Contract shall terminate its validity and Corporation V does not have to refund the periodic insurance premiums and supplementary product premiums (if any) paid but only refunds the contract account value corresponding to additional insurance premiums paid (if any) minus paid insurance benefits, partial withdrawals from the contract account value, and debts (if any), and is not liable for insurance responsibility for risks that have arisen for the insured person.
[14] Thus, Mr. B violated the obligation to provide information about health/personal details, the Insurance Contract terminated its validity, and Corporation V is not liable for insurance responsibility for risks that occurred to the insured person. In this case, Corporation V only has to refund the contract account value corresponding to additional premiums paid (if any) minus benefits, withdrawals, and debts (if any). However, according to the Illustration Table on premium allocation and benefits of the main contract, the surrender value for the first year that the policyholder receives when the contract terminates according to contract regulations is zero. Therefore, the first-instance court’s reasoning that Corporation V had accepted the insurance and the policyholder had paid premiums, thus compelling Corporation V to be responsible for paying insurance money to beneficiaries Mr. M, Ms. T, and Ms. T1 is groundless. The appellate court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ claims to compel Corporation V to bear insurance responsibility is grounded. The cassation decision’s reasoning that Corporation V must be responsible for paying insurance money to the plaintiffs, but must consider the fault of the insurance applicant in providing health information to determine a corresponding payment level, is inconsistent with Article 4.4.2 of the An Phat Tron Doi Terms and Article 4.4.2 of the An Phat Hung Gia Terms.
For the above reasons,
DECISION:
Pursuant to point a, Clause 2, Article 337, Clause 2, Article 343, and Article 344 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015;
1. Accept the Cassation Protest Decision No. 06/QD-VKS-DS dated April 25, 2023, of the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People’s Procuracy.
2. Annul Cassation Decision No. 99/2022/DS-GDT dated April 6, 2022, of the Committee of Justices of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City regarding the case “Dispute over insurance contract” between the plaintiffs Mr. Dang Ngoc M, Ms. Tran Thi T, and Ms. Dang Ngoc Anh T1 and the defendant Corporation V and other persons with related rights and obligations.
3. Uphold Appellate Civil Judgment No. 47/2018/DS-PT dated March 6, 2018, of the People’s Court of Binh Duong Province.
PRECEDENT CONTENT
“[1] On June 17, 2014, and July 24, 2014, Mr. Dang Lam Quoc B participated in the An Phat Tron Doi and An Phat Hung Gia insurance packages, the insured person was Mr. B, the insurance value for each application was 1,500,000,000 VND (premium of 30 million VND/year for 15 years, beneficiary Ms. Tran Thi T), 2,500,000,000 VND (premium of 48 million VND/year for 15 years, beneficiary Ms. Dang Ngoc Anh T1), and 1,500,000,000 VND (premium of 50 million VND/year for 20 years, beneficiary Mr. Dang Ngoc M).
[2] According to the Insurance Applications dated June 17, 2014, and July 24, 2014, in the sections for questions and answers about personal health status, Mr. B checked “x” in all “no” answer boxes, including question No. 17/A/Il “Tumor (benign or malignant), cancer… “, question No. 27/C/II “In the past year, have you had a medical examination and/or any tests? Did you have to take many days off from school or work for medical treatment?” and question No. 30/C/II “Are you currently suffering from or undergoing treatment for any pathology?” After establishing the insurance applications, on June 21, 2014, Corporation V had Mr. B undergo a health check at Binh Duong Private General Hospital. According to the Health Check Conclusion Results at Binh Duong General Hospital dated June 21, 2014, Mr. B was the person providing health check information, including the question: “Have you ever had to stay in the hospital for treatment? When? Reason? What was the longest hospital stay? Medical or surgical treatment?”. Mr. B checked “x” in the “No” box and for this result, Mr. B committed that the information provided to Corporation V’s medical facility was completely full, truthful, and this information was considered supplementary information to the related insurance application and was signed.”.
“[6] On March 11, 2015, Mr. B entered Van Phuc General Hospital with respiratory tract infection, pneumonia; terminal-stage pancreatic K metastatic to liver and kidneys, transferred for emergency care to Binh Duong Provincial General Hospital. On the same day, Mr. B was admitted to Binh Duong Provincial General Hospital in a state of cardiovascular collapse, respiratory failure, pneumonia, terminal-stage pancreatic K metastatic to liver and kidneys. On March 12, 2015, Mr. B died. The cause of death was determined in the Death Certificate of the People’s Committee of T Commune, C District, Binh Duong Province: Death due to illness.
[7] At Dispatch No. 2624/BVUB-KHTH dated December 28, 2016, Ho Chi Minh City Oncology Hospital identified that Mr. B had metastatic carcinoma in many places of unknown primary origin, a highly malignant form of carcinoma, and the patient’s condition when discovered was terminal.
[8] Thus, there is a sufficient basis to affirm that before establishing the Insurance Application with Corporation V on June 17, 2014, and July 24, 2014, Mr. B was clearly aware of his illness, had participated in treatment at various hospitals both domestic and foreign for cancer, but did not honestly declare his health status; at the time of insurance request and contract signing, Mr. B was undergoing treatment at Ho Chi Minh City Oncology Hospital (from May 13, 2014, to August 19, 2014, for neuroendocrine lymph node K). The fact that Corporation V requested an increased premium based on Mr. B’s health check results was for fatty liver, hepatitis B, and blood lipid metabolism disorders, unrelated to Mr. B’s cancer pathology.”.
“[14] Thus, Mr. B violated the obligation to provide information about health/personal details, the Insurance Contract terminated its validity, and Corporation V is not liable for insurance responsibility for risks that occurred to the insured person. In this case, Corporation V only has to refund the contract account value corresponding to additional premiums paid (if any) minus benefits, withdrawals, and debts (if any). However, according to the Illustration Table on premium allocation and benefits of the main contract, the surrender value for the first year that the policyholder receives when the contract terminates according to contract regulations is zero. Therefore, the first-instance court’s reasoning that Corporation V had accepted the insurance and the policyholder had paid premiums, thus compelling Corporation V to be responsible for paying insurance money to beneficiaries Mr. M, Ms. T, and Ms. T1 is groundless. The appellate court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ claims to compel Corporation V to bear insurance responsibility is grounded. The cassation decision’s reasoning that Corporation V must be responsible for paying insurance money to the plaintiffs, but must consider the fault of the insurance applicant in providing health information to determine a corresponding payment level, is inconsistent with Article 4.4.2 of the An Phat Tron Doi Terms and Article 4.4.2 of the An Phat Hung Gia Terms.”.
