RAMANBHAI DEVABHAI Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEESS STATE INSURANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT First Appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees State Insurance Act has been preferred by the appellant ? original appellant ? workman to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the ESI Court dated 06.05.2005 in ESI First Appeal No.27/2003, by which the learned Court has dismissed the said appeal confirming the decision of the Medical Board by which the Board has opined 0% injury sustained by the appellant.

(2.) THE case of the appellant was referred to the Medical Board for determination of the disability suffered by him due to injury in his left eye. That the Medical Board consisting of expert doctors determined/assessed 0% injury. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the decision of the Medical Board assessing 0% disability/injury, appellant workman preferred First Appeal before the ESI Court being ESI First Appeal No.27/2003 and the learned ESI Court vide impugned judgment and order has dismissed the said Appeal confirming the decision of the Medical Board assessing 0% injury. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the ESI Court dated 06/05/2005 in ESI First Appeal No.27/2003, appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 82(2) of the ESI Act.

(3.) HEARD the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the evidence produced on record and the impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court as well as the relevant documents of medical board. It is to be noted that the medical board consists of expert doctors and on personal examination of the appellant, the injury certificate has been issued and the injury is assessed. In the present case, the appellant produced some medical certificate dated 05.05.2000 in support of his claim certifying that he has lost some vision in the left eye and therefore, the injury cannot be assessed at 0%. The said certificate dated 05.05.2000 came to be considered by the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court has observed that thereafter the expert doctors of the medical board examined the appellant and thereafter having satisfied that the appellant has total vision in both the eyes, only thereafter 0% injury certificate has been issued and the aforesaid finding has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. Therefore, whether the appellant has lost some vision in the left eye or not, is a question of fact and not a question of law. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that all the doctors in the medical board were Orthopaedic Surgeon and not a single doctor was specialized in eye and/or ophthalmologist and therefore, the assessment by such medical board is erroneous, cannot be accepted. Whether the appellant has lost some vision can be considered and opined by any doctor. Therefore, on the aforesaid ground, the assessment by the medical board that there is 0% disability, cannot be ignored and/or discarded. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the appellant that there is a breach of Rule 128 of the Manual is concerned, it appears from the documents that while the case of the appellant was referred, it was not in requisite form and the medical reports were also send from the Bapunagar General Hospital, more particularly ophthalmology department. Even otherwise, as stated herein above, the appellant was examined by the doctors of the medical board and only thereafter the injury certificate has been issued.