Court Remands Case for Reassessment, Emphasizing Validity of Qualified Medical Practitioner’s Testimony
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has set aside an order by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, which had rejected a compensation claim on the grounds that the disability certificate was issued by a doctor who did not treat the injured applicant. Justice Jitendra Jain presided over the appeal filed by Mahendra Sabharu Majhi against M/s. Mahlaxmi Enterprises and others, emphasizing that the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, does not necessitate that a disability certificate be issued solely by the treating doctor.
The appellant, Mahendra Sabharu Majhi, was employed at a construction site in Thane and sustained back injuries following a fall. Initially treated at Lok Hospital, Thane, Majhi sought compensation amounting to Rs. 5,95,584 from his employer and the insurance company. However, the Commissioner dismissed his application, primarily because the disability certificate was provided by a non-treating doctor, despite the doctor being a qualified medical practitioner and having provided testimony.
Justice Jain highlighted that the Act defines a "qualified medical practitioner" broadly and does not restrict the issuance of a disability certificate to the treating doctor alone. The court found the Commissioner’s rejection based on this ground to be erroneous and clarified that the evidence provided by any qualified medical practitioner, who may not have treated the patient but has assessed the medical reports, should be considered valid if subjected to cross-examination.
The High Court's decision also addressed the procedural aspects of the case, noting that the Commissioner had erred in dismissing related issues such as the employer-employee relationship and the occurrence of the accident during employment based solely on the disability certificate's origin. Justice Jain remanded the case to the Commissioner, instructing a reassessment of the evidence concerning the loss of earning capacity and the calculation of compensation, while precluding re-examination of other resolved issues.
This ruling draws on a precedent set by the Karnataka High Court in Mukesh Kumar v. Kulhari Tours and Travels, which supports the acceptance of testimony from any qualified medical practitioner regarding disability assessments.
The appellant has been directed to appear before the Commissioner on March 23, 2026, to facilitate a timely reassessment, with a resolution deadline set for June 30, 2026. This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to fair application of the Employees' Compensation Act, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not impede justice for injured workers.
Bottom Line:
Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - Disability certificate issued by a doctor who did not treat the injured applicant can be considered for calculating compensation if the doctor is a qualified medical practitioner and has entered the witness box for cross-examination.
Statutory provision(s):
Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 Sections 2(1)(i), 4(1)(c)(ii), Explanation-II
Mahendra Sabharu Majhi v. M/s. Mahlaxmi Enterprises, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2858675
