Does the provision in the section A.A.C.S.O. for payment in cases wherein "by reason of a disabling sickness the patient is necessarily and continuously confined within the house and throughout which he is regularly visited by a legally qualified physician"?

In my opinion the provision in the paragraph numbered A. for payment in cases wherein “by reason of a disabling sickness the patient is necessarily and continuously confined within the house and throughout which he is therein regularly visited by a legally qualified physician” cannot be confined to the literal meaning of the words. The phraseology “necessarily and continuously confined within the house” is described to indicate the nature of the disabling illness and the extent of the disability. It means “obliges one to stay indoors.” See Murray’s Dictionary, vol. 2, p. 8065, first column. The policy should be given a rational construction: Parsons v. Standard Fire Insur. Co. (1880) 1880 CanLII 4 (SCC), 5 S.C.R. 233. If the illness is of that type, the fact that the patient may advisedly be taken into the fresh air, or take a walk in the hope that fresh air and muscular exercise may prove curative, will not make it another type. It also clearly covers the more serious illnesses where the insured requires hospital treatment. It seems to me particularly idle to suggest that the person who is so sick that he is treated in a hospital loses his sick benefit because he is treated in a hospital and not a house, is not “confined within the house.” Only to a very sick person could even such a controlling person as the defendants’ agent have “gotten by” on May 12, 1931, with a suggestion that the plaintiff was not then confined within the house, and he knew from what the attending physician had told him, and the medical certificate, that the outlook was unpromising.