MANAGEMENT OF PSG HOSPITALS Vs. KALAISELVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order passed in W.C.No.17 of 2010 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour- (Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Coimbatore).

(2.) The claim was filed by the respondents before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Rs.2,75,868/- under the Workmen Compensation Act. The First respondent is the wife, the 2nd and 3rd respondents are the minor children and the fourth respondent is the father of the deceased T.M.Kumaresan who was employed with the appellant hospital as a Radiographer. The claim petition was filed by the respondents claiming that the deceased Kumaresan passed away in the course and at the time of and out of his employment on 19.08.2008. The respondents further claimed that the massive heart attack was caused only because of the stress. The appellant-hospital opposed the claim contesting that the deceased died because of coronary Heart Disease, Dilated Cardio Myopathy and congested cardiac Failure which had no nexus with his employment and also sought the dismissal of the claim that the claim was filed suppressing the material particulars regarding the past medical history of the deceased. The appellant also claimed that the deceased was having problems in the heart from 1990 onwards and also suffered a heart attack on 19.08.1998 and was treated in the appellant hospital without any costs. The appellant also claimed that the deceased was a chain smoker and failed to properly follow the medications prescribed to him and suffered many heart ailments periodically and continuously until his death. The appellants also contended that the deceased was not in employment in their hospital from 2000 to 2006 and was reinstated based on the orders of the Labour Court. The appellant also contested pitying his situation, a non-stress work was given to him. The appellant also resisted the claim contending that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to try the case as there was no connection much less even casual between the employment and the death of Kumaresan. Six Exhibits were marked on the side of the respondents and Eight Exhibits were marked on the side of the appellant. After considering the facts, the documentary and oral evidence and various judgments relied upon by either side, Deputy Labour Commissioner allowed the claim holding that the death was caused arising out of the employment after reasoning that the employment and occupational stress and strain contributed to the aggravation of the heart ailments. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Considering the facts of the case and the various questions involved, this court frames the following questions of law: