(Dec 11) FIVE years ago, a piece of wire mesh hit Mr Tay Eng Chuan's left eye in a freak accident.

The remisier then tried to sue his insurance company, Ace Insurance Limited, for $300,000 for the loss of sight in his left eye.

But his suit was dismissed by Justice Tay Yong Kwang in High Court last Wednesday, as the insurance policy does not allow 'double-claiming for the same injury'.

It turned out that the insurance company had already paid $300,000 to Mr Tay for the loss of the lens in his left eye.

He was ordered to pay costs of $3,500 to Ace Insurance instead.

Mr Tay's injuries happened on 12 Nov 2002 at about 1pm.

He was carrying a piece of wire mesh at home when it got caught between the wall and a pipe in the storeroom and hit his left eye, causing it to bleed.

Mr Tay was sent to the hospital in an ambulance.

He suffered serious injuries to his left eye and had emergency surgery the same day.

Mr Tay was warded till 20 Nov 2002.

But he was re-admitted to hospital on 9 Dec 2002 for an operation to remove the lens in his injured eye.

The function of the lens is to focus images in the eye.

Mr Tay then submitted a claim for $300,000 in insurance benefit from Ace Insurance for the loss of sight in his left eye.

The insurance company appointed an eye specialist to examine him.

Mr Tay's suit said the eye specialist confirmed that his left eye was blind according to the World Health Organisation and legal definitions.

But Ace Insurance noted medical reports from May and August 2003 said Mr Tay could 'perceive light and hand movements at a distance of 6 feet'.

And a further medical report in February 2004 stated that he could count fingers 5 feet away.

On 29 Jul 2003, Ace Insurance agreed to pay Mr Tay the Accidental Hospital Income Benefit.

He received $3,300 for 11 days of hospitalisation.

The insurance company later paid him $300,000 for the loss of the lens in his left eye on 11 Dec 2003.

DOUBLE CLAIM

Mr Tay wanted something more but he did not succeed.

In denying this claim, Justice Tay noted : '... it was clear... that the claim for total loss of sight could not succeed because it would tantamount to double-claiming for the same injury.'

He referred to a clause in Mr Tay's insurance policy which states an insured person who is paid for the 'loss of a whole member of the body' cannot also be paid for the loss of 'parts of that member'.

He said that while Mr Tay's case is the 'reverse situation', the principle remains the same.

Justice Tay added: '... an insured cannot also claim for a broken window if he claims for destruction of the entire house.'

If Mr Tay had succeeded in claiming for the total loss of sight, he would have to return the money paid for the loss of the lens.