作為解決保險交易資訊不對稱之重要機制，告知義務係維繫保險制度有效運轉之基礎所在，亦為引起保險糾紛之重要原因。本文旨在通過實證研究，統計相關司法判決，分析法院對消費者保護之強度，並檢視中國大陸《保險法》第十六條（告知義務條款）之適當性。本文發現，整體而言消費者獲得勝訴判決之比率較高，司法審判對消費者保護力度較大；尤其相對於從部分勝訴到全部勝訴的「錦上添花」，法院更常藉其裁量權來「雪中送炭」，使消費者不至於全部敗訴。這與中國大陸近年來多次修訂告知義務規定，加強消費者保護理念之趨勢相符。但在保護善意消費者的同時，亦應限制惡意消費者享受法律的過度保護。就具體原則而言，如全有全無原則、因果關係抗辯、要保人具有主觀詐欺意圖時保險人之民法撤銷權等事項，亦可考慮修正，以免過猶不及之憾。本文之發現亦能與臺灣之相關研究相呼應。最後，本文乃對兩岸之保險法提出修正建議。

Policyholders’ duty of disclosure is not only the basis for maintaining the effective operation of the insurance system, but also one of the biggest stimulations for the increasing insurance law suits. This article aims to re-examine the appropriateness of policyholders’ duty of disclosure in the context of strengthening consumer protection with comparative law and empirical studies. Through statistical analysis of relevant judicial decisions, this article explores the trend of judgments and the intensity of consumer protection, clarifies controversial issues such as imputation elements and legal consequences, and proposes explanations and suggestions for amendments. The result shows that, on the whole, China’s judicial decisions have a higher degree of consumer protection. This is similar to the result of comparative studies which is the trend of strengthening consumer protection in various countries. In terms of specific rules, more attention shall be drawn to restrict bad-faith consumers from enjoying the additional protection while strengthening the protection of good-faith consumers. For example, the rule of causality may be revised to avoid disproportionately favorable judgment for consumers. However, in case of consumer protection, the rules of premium refunds, criteria on important facts can still be considered for revision in the future. The findings of this paper also can echo with researches conducted in Taiwan. Finally, this paper provides legislative proposal for China and Taiwan’s insurance laws.