INSURANCE POLICY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 773, 23 March 1910, Page 7

INSURANCE POLICY.

AN IMPORTANT DECISION. MEDICAL EVIDENCE. By Telegrapb-Presa Association-Copyright Melbourne, March 22. The'High 1 Court gave an important deoision in an appeal from the State Full Conrt, which refused <t new trial in the case Goodrich versus the Na- :> c tional Mutual Life Association. . .. Mrs. Goodrich took out a policy for y £600. After her death the company, refused to pay over the amount due , on " the ground that Mrs. Goodrich falsely ■ answered certain personal questions >" with a view to obtaining the policy. ' J During the Lower Court trial, a i medical man tendered evidence regarding . Mrs. Goodrich's ph.y-1 sical state hefore her death, t but tie evidence was rejected on the f.ground that the doctor had not ob- j': tained the consent of the patient. .The j jury found thai Mrs. Goodrich was not { conscious when she answered &e ques-, ( tions put to her that she wee suffering • from any physical derangement, and'■_ a verdict was given for p&intifPe execu- ' tor for the full'amount" with' costs.- *• The defendant company based ■Sμ : * appeal on the limitation of <ihe clause of >. the Evidence Aot which provides i&sb no physician, or surgeoai shall, without v the consent of.the patient, divulge in y any suit ot action—unless the sanity,.; of the patient be lihe "matter in cßs--'j" pute—any information acquired m at- ;< tending patient. " ■'.'.:■ ■.'"..;.■*■ The High Cbtirt conld pot see any satisfactory ground for Smiting the •; meaning of the clause and upneld the } Lower Court's decision. t