What is the test for time loss insurance in the context of time loss claims?

In Gyles v. Mutual Benefit, Health and Accident Assn. (1940) 7 Ins LR 195, the plaintiff brought action on a policy of insurance issued to him by the defendant company The policy insured against loss of time resulting from certain diseases subject to certain limitations therein stated. One of the conditions stated was that the policy did not cover while the insured was not continuously under the professional care and regular attendance at least once a week beginning with the first treatment of a physician. Another condition was that the disability must confine the insured continuously within doors. Rose C.J. found from the evidence that the insured was never confined continuously within doors and had not been attended by a qualified physician. He was of the opinion that the provisions of the policy were plain, that there was no ambiguity and he dismissed the action.