MS. POOJA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant. The petitioner had sustained severe head injury with the compound Grade-III communited fracture of both bones of the left lower limb with the right calcaneum and right calavide, resulting in loss of memory, disfigurement and impairment in her vision. The Medical Board, which had examined her, had certified the disability to be 77%. The petitioner was pursuing MBA course at the time of motor accident resulting in her injuries causing the disablement and the evidence was that on account of the injury, she could not complete her education and could not secure any employment. She had very serious impairment of her mobility and with her defect in vision and her inability to write, she has become unfit to lead a normal life. She is unable to pursue any career to support herself. The Tribunal has, while assessing compensation, determined an amount of Rs. 3,04,000/- as payable to her, that included 1 lakh of 3 rupees towards medical expenses; Rs. 50,000/- as pain and suffering, besides other claims allowed to aggregate to the amount referred to above.

(2.) During the pendency of appeal, an application has been filed for reception of additional evidence to show that she has been incurring recurring medical expenses for having to take a prolonged treatment at the Apollo Hospital at Delhi. The documents showed prima facie a continuance of the treatment that started at the time when she received injury and I therefore, gave opportunity for the petitioner to examine the doctor about the medical treatment that she was undergoing. The disability certificate filed contained several technical expressions and I had therefore summoned the doctor, who had been one of the members of the Medical Board that issued the certificate. The doctor, who is the Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Neuro Surgery, was also therefore examined. The Superintendent of the Apollo Hospital was also examined as a witness to speak about the continuance treatment for the petitioner was getting and the medicines that had been dispensed to her towards the treatment.

(3.) The certificate issued by the doctor was allowed to be taken on record by the Tribunal without eliciting from the doctor what it meant. It is a recurrent theme in our Courts that the doctors' evidence is never put to any useful purpose. No more detail than the fact that the patient was examined and that he or she issued a certificate are elicited. Such evidence that helps neither the Court nor the party. In every case, the doctor certifies the disability, it shall be the endeavour of the Tribunal to elicit the requisite relevant facts, if they are not already elicited viz., the nature of injuries, the nature of disability, as to how a particular disability could impact the earning skills. There are aspects which an expert doctor would be most competent to say. This must be matched with the claimant's Own evidence of what disability she claims that she is suffering from and what she speaks about the present status of the employment in relation to a particular employment or particular avocation which she was pursuing before the accident. It is in this relative comparison that it is possible to ascertain the loss of earning capacity, besides how the disability has inconvenienced the claimant in enjoying the normal amenities of life. The non-pecuniary heads of compensation relating to disability comes with a whole spectral heads, such as loss of amenities, disfigurement, inability to perform certain types of activities and such like. A doctor's evidence that contains technical expression would require to be demystified for neither the lawyer nor a litigant, not to say of Judges themselves, are equipped sufficiently to know what the technical expressions mean and how the particular regimen of treatment or the nature of injuries that have been noticed would cause permanence of any disability or how they can affect the earning capacity of a person. In this case, the certificate used several expressions which were not of common parlance and it was under those circumstances that this Court felt constrained to allow for oral evidence to be brought again by the very same doctor, who had examined the claimant and had assessed the disability at 77%.