With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: 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
C: 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
D: holding plaintiffs counsels illness constitutes good cause
A.