AROTH Vs. CRAIG JUTE MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Act 8 of 1923) made by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Bengal, under the power conferred on him by Section 27 of the Act, which is as follows: The Commissioner may, if he thinks fit, submit any question of law for the decision of the High Court, and if he does so shall decide the question in conformity with such decision.

(2.) The question of law referred to us has reference to the true construction of Sub-section (6), Section 11 of the Act, and arises upon the following facts which have been found by the Commissioner. The applicant alleged that while joining threads in a beaming machine his right hand was caught between the drum and steam heated cylinder and was smashed. The employer contended that the hand was not smashed but only scalded and that owing to the applicant's disregard of the medical officer's instruction to keep his hand in bandages it became septic. The Commissioner has found that the employer's version is the correct one, that the applicant's disability is due to analysis of the joints which is the result of sepsis and that the present condition of his hand is due to his own conduct in disregarding the medical officer's instructions. In other words, that his injury has been aggravated by his disregard of those instructions. The Commissioner has accepted the evidence of the employer's doctor that the original injury was only a very slight burn.

(3.) The question is whether in these circumstances the Sub-section 6, Section 11 applies to the case. That sub-section is as follows: Where an injured workman has refused to be attended by a qualified medical practitioner whose services-have been offered to him by the employer free of charge or having accepted such offer has deliberately disregarded the instructions of such medical practitioner, then, if it is thereafter prove! that the workman has not been regularly attended by a qualified medical practitioner and that such refusal, failure or disregard was unreasonable in the circumstances of the case and that the injury has been aggravated thereby, the injury and resulting disablement shall be deemed to be of the same nature and duration as they might reasonably have been expected to be if the workman had been regularly attended by a qualified medical practitioner, and compensation, if any, shall be payable accordingly.