the mandate of the statute. Examining this conflict, the court observed that the commissioner had approved the policy with the provision in question. But the record shows that: (a) the commissioner disapproved the policy form if the intent was never to cover a pre-existing condition under a disability income policy that did not, at the time of issuance, exclude that condition by name or specific description; and (b) the Department of Commerce does not have any written record of receiving or approving the policy form. Citing a Fifth Circuit case, respondent argues that the mandatory incontestability clause and the “first manifest” requirement under its definition of sickness are not inconsistent with each other. See Massachusetts Cas. Ins. Co. v. Forman, 516 F.2d 425, 428 (5th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 914, 96 S.Ct. 1114, 47
holding plaintiffs counsels illness constitutes good cause holding that a jury may draw an inference as to the cause of an illness despite the lack of unanimity among experts as to the cause holding that upon applying the doctrine of contra proferentem the insureds organically based illness does not fall within the mental illness limitation as a matter of law holding that a mental illness limitation limiting the maximum payment for care of mental illness or care of nervous conditions of any type or cause is ambiguous because the plan contains no definition or explanation of the term mental illness  and thus construed against the insurance company does not include physically based illnesses holding that the incontestability provisions of the policy did not cause a preexisting illness to be covered because the illness first manifested itself before the policy became effective