The plaintiff's general terms included a provision that the insured person needs to prove, besides the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, the existence of two additional neurological deficits that cause the permanent and irreversible inability of the insured person to move on a flat surface from room to room or the inability to feed himself with ready-made food. The dispute arose as the defendant claimed that such terms, first, are unfair to the consumer and therefore not binding and, secondly, significantly changed the performance of the contract as compared to what he could reasonably expect.