A QUESTION OF EVIDENCE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10001, 23 March 1910, Page 5

A QUESTION OF EVIDENCE.

AN IMPORTANT DECISION,

WHAT DOCTORS MUST NOT DIVULGE.

Received March 22, 8.45 a.m. MELBOURNE, March 22.

The High Court gave an important decision in an appeal from the State Full Court, which refused a new trial in the case Goodrich versus the National Mutual Life Association.

Mra Goodrich took out a policy for £6OO. After her death the company refused to pay over the amount due on the ground that Mra Goodrich falsely answered certain personal questions with a view to obtaining the policy.

During the Lower Court trial, a medical man tendered evidence regarding Mrs Goodrich's physical state before her death, but the evidence was rejected on the ground that the doctor had not obtained the consent of the patient. The jury found that Mrs Goodrich was not conscious when she answered the question put to her, that she was suffering from any physical derangement, and i verdict was given for plaintiff's executor for the full amount with costs. The defendant company based the appeal on the limitation of the clause of the iiividence Act which provides that no physician or surgeon shall, without the consent of the patient, divulge in any suit or action—unless the sanity of the patient be the matter in dispute—any information acquired in attsnding the patient.

The High Court could not see any satisfactory ground for limiting the meaning of the clause and upheld the lower court's decision.