MANZOOR HUSSAIN Vs. NODAL OFFICER & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 7.12.2007 passed by the learned Divisional Forum, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as the Forum) has been taken in appeal. Vide the terms of the said order; the Forum has dismissed the complaint and held that the disablement suffered by the appellant of his right hand did not fall in any of the enabling -heads -categorized as B C and D in the circular of the Government (Annexure E 2) to attract the operation of Janta Personal Accident Insurance Scheme for the benefit of Government employees. In other words, the circular does not cover "partial disablement" of such a nature which the appellant had suffered.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that the appellant who is serving as a head constable in Jammu and Kashmir Armed Police suffered blast injury on the right hand with degloving of right forearm skin with compound Type III fracture of right leg when he was combating with militants to repulse their attack made on a police picket situated nearby a place known as "Nud" falling under the jurisdiction of police station Samba. In the attack some of his comrades in arms too had received injuries. He remained admitted as an indoor patient in the Government Medical College, Jammu from where subsequently he was referred to Christian Medical College, Ludhiana. There his right thumb was amputated along with right finger at MP and joint right little finger at MP joint, with stiffness of middle and ring finger MP and DIP joint with stiffness of wrist and scarring over whole of the palm right. He had also an injury in his leg where iron rod was fitted. Medical Board was constituted to determine his state of fitness and he was declared, "Handicapped of right hand with disability of 60%". He filed complaint in the Forum inter alia making with the allegations that he was admitted in the Government Medical College, Jammu on 21.12.2000 and remained as an indoor patient upto 16.3.2001.Thereafter, he was shifted to Christian Medical College, Ludhiana for advance surgery and remained admitted for one month. He was advised to visit the Hospital regularly for check up and had spent Rupees 2 lakh for under going treatment. On the basis of evidence produced before the Forum, he was not indemnified under the "covered risk of Janta Insurance Scheme," on the sole ground that a beneficiary of the scheme could only be a person who is covered under any of the heads a, b, c or d of the Government circular ( Annexure E 2). For convenience sake, those heads are reproduced hereunder: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1_LAWS(J&KCDRC)10_2009.html</FRM>

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order the appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that admittedly his case was of 60% disability of a right hand and he was entitled to receive 50% of the sum insured.