Bombay High Court: In an appeal under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (Compensation Act), dealing with rejection of compensation claim on the ground that the disability certificate was issued by non-treating doctor, a Single Judge Bench of Jitendra Jain, J., held that the Commissioner was not justified in discarding the disability certificate merely on this ground as under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) read with Explanation II, Compensation Act, any qualified medical practitioner is competent to issue such certificate. Holding that the order was unsustainable, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the evidence on loss of earning capacity.
Background
The matter arose from an accident at a construction site, where the appellant sustained back injuries after a fall and was hospitalised from 22 March 2010 to 29 March 2010. He filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation (Commissioner) seeking compensation of Rs 5,95,584 from the employer and insurer jointly and severally.
The Commissioner dismissed the application on 19 June 2012, holding that the disability certificate was issued by a doctor who had not treated the injured, and therefore could not be relied upon. However, the applicant challenged this dismissal in appeal.
It was contended by the appellant that the Commissioner wrongly decided all issues against the applicant based only on the disability certificate, without independently considering other issues such as the employer-employee relationship and whether the accident occurred in the course of employment. By way of opposition, the respondents argued that the certificate lacked credibility as it was issued one year later by a doctor who had not attended the injured.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that no provision in the Compensation Act, nor any provision referred to in the judgment, states that the disability certificate has to be issued only by the doctor who attended the injured. The Court also noted that there is no dispute that the doctor who issued the disability certificate is a qualified medical practitioner.
It was further emphasised that the object of obtaining a medical disability certificate from a medical expert is to arrive at the percentage of disability by taking the help of an expert in the field, and therefore, in the absence of any specific provision in the Compensation Act requiring the disability certificate to be issued only by the doctor who has treated the injured, the reasoning of the Commissioner to reject the application is not correct. The Court highlighted that a qualified medical practitioner who has not treated the injured can always give evidence on the basis of the medical reports of the injured and give a certificate on the loss of earning capacity or disability, and such a doctor is always open for cross-examination.
The Court noted that Section 4(1)(c)(ii) and Explanation II, Compensation Act provide that a disability certificate may be issued by a “qualified medical practitioner” for ascertaining loss of earning capacity in relation to injuries specified in the Schedule. Further, Section 2(1)(i), Compensation Act defines “qualified medical practitioner” as any person registered under a Central, Provincial, or State Act providing for the maintenance of a register of medical practitioners, or, where no such Act is in force, any person declared by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette to be a qualified medical practitioner for the purposes of the Compensation Act.
The Court emphasised that merely because the doctor gave a medical certificate who did not attend the injured but entered the witness box after one year cannot be a ground for discarding and rejecting the whole claim. The Court observed that the Commissioner should have considered the evidence of the doctor and could have independently arrived at the percentage of loss of earning capacity. Therefore, in the Court’s view, the approach of the Commissioner in rejecting the application was erroneous, and the Commissioner ought to have considered the certificate issued by a doctor who did not treat the injured applicant, but was subjected to cross-examination, and after considering the same should have arrived at the disability percentage.
The Court referred to Mukesh Kumar v. Kulhari Tours & Travels, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 808, wherein it was held that there is no provision in the Compensation Act mandating assessment of loss of earning capacity only by a doctor who has treated the workman, and there is no bar for consideration of deposition of any qualified medical practitioner who examined the claimant and substantiates the disability.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 19 June 2012 and remanded the matter to the Commissioner, limited to reconsidering the evidence on record and determining the loss of earning capacity, while precluding re-examination of other issues. The Court thus allowed appeal, with directions for the disposal of the compensation application on or before 30 June 2026.
[Mahendra Sabharu Majhi v. Mahlaxmi Enterprises, First Appeal No. 1627 of 2012, decided on 25-2-2026]
Also Read: Application for disability certificate can now be made in any hospital
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Respondents: Vijay Sardal