AN INSURANCE CASE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 10409, 22 March 1910, Page 4

AN INSURANCE CASE.

[By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.] (Per Press Association.) Received March 22, at 8.15 a.rti. Melbourne, March 22. • The High Court gave an important decision in the appeal from the State Full Court, which refused a ne_w trial in the case of Goodrich v. the National Mutual Life Association. Mrs Good'ricli took out a policy for £6OO, and after her death the Company refused to pay oyer the amount on the ground, that Mrs- had falsely answered certain personal questions with a view to obtaining the policy. At the Lower Court trial a medical man tendered evidence regarding Mrs Goodrich's physical state before 'death, but the evidence was rejected on the ground that the doctor had not obtained the consent of the patient. The jury found Mrs Goodrich was not conscious when she answered in reply to questions that she was suffering from any such physical derangement, and a verdict was given for plaintiff's executor for the full amount and costs. The defendant Company based its appeals on the limitation of the clause of the Evidence Act, which provides that no physician or surgeon -shrill, without consent of ..the patient, divulge in any suit or action, unless the sanity of tne patient be the matter in dispute, any information acquiiecl in attending such patient. -- The High Court could not see any satisfactory ground for limiting the meaning of the clause, and upheld the Lower Court's decision.