The Bombay High Court ruled that a compensation claim under the Employees’ Compensation Act cannot be rejected simply because the disability certificate was issued by a doctor who did not treat the injured worker. The Court set aside the Commissioner’s order and directed reconsideration of the worker’s disability and compensation.
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, holding that a compensation claim cannot be rejected merely because the doctor who issued the disability certificate did not personally treat the injured worker.
The Court clarified that there is no requirement under the Employees’ Compensation Act that only the doctor who treated the injured person can issue a disability certificate. If a qualified medical practitioner issues such a certificate and appears before the court to give evidence, the Commissioner must consider that evidence before deciding the claim.
The ruling was delivered by a Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Jain while hearing an appeal against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. The Commissioner had dismissed the worker’s claim solely on the ground that the disability certificate was issued by a doctor who had not treated the injured applicant.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court held that the Commissioner adopted an incorrect approach and should have evaluated the medical evidence rather than rejecting the entire compensation claim.
The Court observed,
“In the instant case, merely because the doctor gave a medical certificate who did not attend the injured but entered the witness box after one year cannot be a ground for discarding and rejecting the whole claim. The Commissioner should have considered the evidence of the doctor and could have arrived at independently the percentage of loss of earning capacity. Therefore, in my view, the approach of the Commissioner in rejecting the application was erroneous and the Commissioner ought to have considered the certificate issued by a doctor who did not treat the injured applicant, but was subjected to cross-examination and after considering the same should have arrived at the disability percentage.”
Advocate Varsha Nichani appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Vijay Sardal represented the respondent.
The case arose from an incident involving a worker who was employed at a construction site in Thane. During the course of his work, the worker fell at the construction site and suffered injuries to his back. After the accident, he was taken to Lok Hospital in Thane for treatment.
Subsequently, the injured worker filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation seeking compensation of ₹5,95,584 from his employer and the insurance company, claiming that the accident had occurred during the course of employment.
However, the Commissioner dismissed the application. The rejection was based solely on the ground that the disability certificate submitted by the worker had been issued by a doctor who had not personally treated him, even though the doctor had later appeared in the witness box and provided testimony.
Challenging this decision, the injured worker approached the Bombay High Court.
While examining the case, the High Court noted that the Commissioner had also decided other important issues against the applicant, including whether an employer–employee relationship existed and whether the accident had occurred during the course of employment. The High Court observed that these issues were unrelated to the disability certificate and should have been assessed independently.
The Bench explained,
“For example, whether employer-employee relationship has been established or whether the accident occurred in the course of employment etc. are issues which ought to have been decided independently and same does not have any relation whatsoever with respect to the disability certificate for the purpose of calculating compensation. However, since all the issues are decided against the applicant solely on the ground of disability certificate, for the reasons stated hereinafter, the said reasoning is erroneous.”
The Court further examined the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. It referred to Section 4(1)(c)(ii) and Explanation II of the Act, which deal with the assessment of loss of earning capacity in cases of permanent partial disability. These provisions state that the percentage of loss of earning capacity should be assessed with the help of a certificate issued by a “qualified medical practitioner.”
The Bench also referred to Section 2(1)(i) of the Act, which defines a “qualified medical practitioner” as any person registered under a Central or State law that maintains a register of medical practitioners. In areas where such laws are not in force, a person notified by the State Government may also be considered a qualified medical practitioner.
Based on these provisions, the Court noted that the law does not require the disability certificate to be issued only by the doctor who treated the injured person.
The Bench observed,
“I have not been shown any provision in the Act nor any provision has been referred to in the judgment which states that the disability certificate has to be issued only by the doctor who attended the injured. There is no dispute that the doctor who issued the disability certificate in the present case is a qualified medical practitioner. The object of obtaining a medical disability certificate from a medical expert is to arrive at the percentage of disability by taking the help of an expert in the field. Therefore, in the absence of any specific provision in the Act requiring disability certificate to be issued only by the doctor who has treated the injured reasoning of the Commissioner to reject application is not correct.”
The High Court also referred to a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Mukesh Kumar vs. Kulhari Tours and Travels Prof. Mahipal Singh & Anr. (2025). In that case, the Karnataka High Court had similarly held that the Employees’ Compensation Act does not mandate that the assessment of disability must be made only by the doctor who treated the injured worker.
The Bombay High Court found the reasoning in that judgment relevant and observed that the deposition of any qualified medical practitioner who examines the injured person and explains the disability can be relied upon by the court.
After examining the facts and the legal provisions, the High Court concluded that the Commissioner had wrongly rejected the compensation claim.
ALSO READ: “One Of Puja Khedkar’s Disability Certificates May Be Forged”: Police To Delhi HC
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner, and remanded the matter back for reconsideration. The Commissioner has been directed to evaluate the evidence already on record, including the testimony of the doctor who issued the disability certificate, and determine the percentage of disability and loss of earning capacity.
The Court further directed that the Commissioner should calculate the compensation payable to the injured worker based on this assessment.
While remanding the matter, the Bench clarified that the Commissioner should not reopen other issues in the case and should only determine the question of disability and compensation.
The Court concluded,
“It is made clear that other than this issue, no other issue will be examined by the Commissioner.”
Case Title:
Mahendra Sabharu Majhi v. M/s. Mahlaxmi Enterprises
(Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:9667)
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Disability Certificate
