Employees' Compensation Claim Cannot Be Rejected Solely For Disability Certificate Issued By Non-Treating Doctor: Bombay High Court
Safiya Malik
The Bombay High Court Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Jain held that a workman's compensation claim cannot be dismissed solely because the disability certificate was issued by a doctor who did not personally treat the injured worker. The case arose from a construction site accident where a laborer sustained back injuries and sought compensation from his employer and insurer. The Court clarified that the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 requires only a qualified medical practitioner to issue such a certificate and remanded the matter for fresh determination of the disability percentage.
The appellant, a construction worker employed by the first respondent, suffered back injuries after falling at a construction site in Thane. He was hospitalised from 22 March 2010 to 29 March 2010 at Lok Hospital, Thane.
The appellant filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation of Rs. 5,95,584/- from both respondents jointly and severally. Evidence of the first respondent and the appellant was recorded before the Commissioner.
The Commissioner dismissed the application on the sole ground that the disability certificate was issued by a doctor who had not attended to the injured applicant, even though that doctor entered the witness box and gave evidence. On this basis, the Commissioner decided all issues against the applicant. The first respondent was represented before the Commissioner; the second respondent, an insurance company, chose not to appear despite notice.
The statutory provisions relevant to the dispute were Section 4(1)(c)(ii) and Explanation-II of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, which provide for disability certificates to be issued by a "qualified medical practitioner," and Section 2(1)(i), which defines that term.
The Court observed that the Commissioner was not justified in answering all issues against the applicant solely on the ground relating to the disability certificate, particularly on issues that had no connection to it. The Court stated: "Whether employer-employee relationship has been established or whether the accident occurred in the course of employment etc. are issues which ought to have been decided independently and same does not have any relation whatsoever with respect to the disability certificate for the purpose of calculating compensation."
On the statutory framework, the Court recorded: "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."
The Court further observed: "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. Therefore, in the absence of any specific provision in the Act requiring disability certificate to be issued only by the doctor who has treated the injured reasoning of the Commissioner to reject application is not correct."
On the competence of a non-treating doctor to certify disability, the Court stated: "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. Such a doctor is always open for cross examination."
The Court further observed: "In the instant case, 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 Commissioner should have considered the evidence of the doctor and could have arrived at independently the percentage of loss of earning capacity."
The Court also relied upon the Karnataka High Court's decision in Mukesh Kumar vs. Kulhari Tours and Travels Prof. Mahipal Singh & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine Kar 808), noting that it was specifically observed therein: "there is no provision in the 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."
The Court directed: "The impugned order is set aside and is remanded back to the Commissioner for the limited purpose of considering the evidence on record and giving a finding on loss of earning capacity. Insofar as other issues are concerned like employer-employee relationship, accident having occurred in the course of employment etc. are concerned, same are precluded from being re-examined since the only ground for rejection even on these issues was the certificate having issued by a non-treating doctor."
"The Commissioner is directed to consider the evidence on record of the doctor who has issued the certificate and arrive at a disability percentage and calculate the compensation. It is made clear that other than this issue, no other issue will be examined by the Commissioner. The appellant to appear before the Commissioner on 23 March 2026 at 11:00 a.m. so that the Commissioner can fix up the date for hearing. The Commissioner is requested to dispose of the application for compensation on or before 30 June 2026."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Ms. Varsha Nichani, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vijay Sardal, Advocate.
Case Title: Mahendra Sabharu Majhi v. M/s. Mahlaxmi Enterprises & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:9667
Case Number: First Appeal No. 1627 of 2012
Bench: Justice Jitendra Jain
