SHRI MAHENDRA SABHARU MAJHI v. M/S MAHALXMI ENTERPRISES....
Admissibility of Disability Certificates Issued by Non-Treating Qualified Medical Practitioners under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:9667
Decision Date: 25-02-2026
List of Laws
Employees' Compensation Act, 1923; Section 2(1)(i) - Definition of Qualified Medical Practitioner; Section 4(1)(c)(ii) - Compensation for Permanent Partial Disablement; Evidence Act - Expert Testimony and Cross-Examination
- Facts: The appellant, Mahendra Sabharu Majhi, was employed by Respondent No. 1 at a construction site in Thane. In March 2010, the appellant fell and sustained back injuries during the course of his employment, for which he received treatment at Lok Hospital. He subsequently filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation seeking Rs. 5,95,584/- in compensation. To support his claim, he produced a disability certificate issued by a qualified medical practitioner and examined said doctor as a witness. However, the Commissioner dismissed the entire claim, including foundational issues like the employer-employee relationship, solely on the ground that the disability certificate was issued by a doctor who had not personally treated the injured applicant at the time of the accident.
- Procedural Posture: The appellant filed a First Appeal before the Bombay High Court challenging the 2012 order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. The High Court admitted the appeal and framed a substantial question of law regarding the validity of the Commissioner's rejection based on the non-treating status of the certifying doctor.
- Issue: Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in rejecting an application for compensation on the sole ground that the disability certificate was issued by a doctor who did not attend to the injured applicant during their initial treatment?
- Holding: No, the Commissioner was not justified. The High Court held that a certificate from a qualified medical practitioner cannot be discarded merely because the practitioner was not the treating physician.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 4(1)(c)(ii) and Section 2(1)(i) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, only require a "qualified medical practitioner" to assess the loss of earning capacity. The Court observed that there is no specific provision in the Act mandating that such a certificate must be issued exclusively by the doctor who treated the injury. A qualified expert can assess disability based on medical reports and the physical examination of the claimant. Furthermore, since the doctor in this case appeared as a witness and was available for cross-examination, the Commissioner should have evaluated the evidence on its merits to determine the disability percentage. The Court also criticized the Commissioner for dismissing unrelated issues, such as the employment relationship, based on a technicality regarding the medical certificate.
🔒 For Members Only