The documents of the case revealed that the court concluded that the insurance policy stipulated that damage should be a permanent one that deprived the relevant party from work in order for them to be compensated

The court said that the medical report which was established on the grounds of a diagnosis of the appellant's medical case found that the damage which resulted from the incident did not deprive the appellant from working and earning their living. The court said that the court therefore concluded that the appellant should not be exempt from the payment of the remaining value of the loan. The court said that the court had the authority to evaluate the insurance policy and determine its conditions properly. The court said that the court established its ruling on the grounds of solid evidence and that the appellant's defence in this regard was irrelevant.

The court dismissed the appeal.