Case Note & Summary
The High Court allowed an appeal against the Commissioner's order that rejected a compensation claim under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, due to a disability certificate issued by a non-treating doctor. The Court held that the Act does not mandate the certificate to be issued only by the treating doctor, provided the doctor is a qualified medical practitioner. The order was set aside, and the case was remanded for the Commissioner to reassess the disability percentage based on existing evidence, without re-examining other concluded issues.
Headnote
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, heard an appeal against an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 -- The appellant, an employee, suffered back injuries at a construction site and claimed compensation -- The Commissioner dismissed the application solely because the disability certificate was issued by a non-treating doctor -- The Court framed a substantial question of law on this issue -- Held, the Commissioner erred in rejecting the claim based on this ground, as the Act does not require the certificate to be issued only by the treating doctor -- The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Commissioner for limited reconsideration of disability assessment -- Other issues like employer-employee relationship were precluded from re-examination
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in rejecting the application for compensation on the sole ground that the disability certificate was issued by a doctor who did not attend to the injured applicant
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner and remanded the case back to the Commissioner for limited purpose of considering evidence on record and giving a finding on loss of earning capacity, without re-examining other issues
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 137
First Appeal No. 1627 of 2012
Ms. Varsha Nichani, Mr. Vijay Sardal
M/s. Mahalaxmi Enterprises, The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
Nature of Litigation: Appeal against order of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation dismissing compensation application
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought setting aside of Commissioner's order and remand for reconsideration of disability assessment
Filing Reason
Commissioner rejected compensation claim solely because disability certificate was issued by non-treating doctor
Previous Decisions
Commissioner dismissed application, deciding all issues against appellant based on disability certificate ground
Issues
Whether the Commissioner was justified in rejecting the compensation application on the ground that the disability certificate was issued by a non-treating doctor
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that Act does not require certificate from treating doctor, and non-treating doctor's evidence should be considered
Respondent no.2 did not appear despite notice
Ratio Decidendi
The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 does not mandate that a disability certificate must be issued only by the doctor who treated the injured; a qualified medical practitioner who did not treat the injured can issue such a certificate and give evidence, subject to cross-examination
Judgment Excerpts
'I have not been shown any provision in the Act nor any provision has been referred to in the judgment which states that the disability certificate has to be issued only by the doctor who attended the injured' -- Para 12
'The Commissioner should have considered the evidence of the doctor and could have arrived at independently the percentage of loss of earning capacity' -- Para 14
Procedural History
Appeal filed in 2012, admitted on 20 January 2014 without framing substantial question of law -- Notice issued to respondent no.2 on 14 January 2026 -- No appearance by respondent no.2 -- Appeal decided ex parte on 25 February 2026
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
