Allowed

The Manager v. Vasantha

Kerala HC7 Aug 2017MFA (ECC)/102/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against a compensation order, the High Court of Kerala allowed the appeal. The court held that death due to acute myocardial infarction, a natural disease, did not arise out of employment as there was no evidence proving the work aggravated or accelerated the disease. Consequently, the compensation order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order directing payment of compensation set aside under Section 44A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and this appeal allowed.

The Manager Vs Vasantha — Medical Negligence | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/16TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶6

MFA.No. 102 of 2013 (C)

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN W.C.C 26/2003 of W.C.C.,KOTTAYAM, DATED 06-12-2012

¶8

APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY: -

¶9

THE MANAGER, CHUNDAVURRAI ESTATE, S. P. PURAM POST, MUNNAR-685612.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH

¶11

RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS: -

¶12

VASANTHA, W/O.LATE M L MUNIYANDI, EAST DIVISION, CHUNDUVARAI ESTATE, MUNNAR POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685612.

¶13

SANKAR GANESH, EAST DIVISION, CHUDUVARAI ESTATE, MUNNAR POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685612.

¶14

VINODHKUMAR, EAST DIVISION, CHUNDUVARAI ESTATE, MUNNAR POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685612.

¶15

POONKOTHA, EAST DIVISION, CHUNDUVARAI ESTATE, MUNNAR POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685612.

¶16

R1-R4 BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA

¶17

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-08-2017. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

DMR/-

¶19

K. HARILAL & P. SOMARAJAN, JJ. -----------------------------------------------M.F.A. No.102 of 2013

¶20

Dated this the 07^th day of August, 2017

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

K. Harilal, J.

¶23

The appellant is the opposite party against whom the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation directing him to pay an amount of Rs.3,28,375/- as compensation for the death of one Muniyandi. The respondents filed an application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation for the fatal accident allegedly caused to the husband of the 1^st Applicant, Sri.M.L.Muniyandi, on the ground that his death was caused by the accident arising out and in the course of employment under the opposite party.

¶24

According to the applicants, on 14.10.2002 at 8.30 a.m. while the aforesaid Muniyandi was doing work at Kundala Estate Office, he felt chest pain and went to the hospital. After taking medicines from the Estate Dispensary, he came back to attend his duties. But, at 9.30 a.m., he again felt chest pain and went again to the Estate Dispensary and from there he was referred to General Hospital and died at

¶25

M.F.A. No.102 of 2013

¶26

¶27

there at 3.15 p.m.

¶28

The opposite party contended that on 14.10.2002,

¶29

while he was on duty, he informed the office that he was not feeling well and went to hospital at 8.30 a.m. He came back at 9.30 a.m. Thereafter, he again went to the hospital due to abdominal pain and at last he died at the hospital at 3.15 p.m, where the decease was diagnosed as “Acute Myocardial Infarction”. According to the opposite party, the death was due to a natural disease and not because of the accident arising out of and in the course of employment. They further contended that the death of the deceased would have happened even if he had been at his home.

¶30

On the aforesaid rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence consists of the oral testimony of AWs 1-3, RW1 and Exhibits M1 to M5. After considering the aforesaid evidence, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation allowed the application and granted an amount of Rs.3,28,375/- as compensation on a finding that the death was caused by the accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The aforesaid finding, whereby the Compensation Commissioner

¶31

M.F.A. No.102 of 2013

¶32

¶33

granted compensation, is challenged in this appeal.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶35

The sum and substance of the argument advanced by

¶36

the learned counsel for the appellant is that absolutely there is no evidence to prove the causal connection between the death and employment and the Appellate Authority went wrong by granting compensation without sufficient evidence. In support of the aforesaid argument, the learned counsel for the appellant cited Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and Another v. Francis De Costa and Another [(1996) 6 SCC 1] and Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore [2006 (3) KLT 426 (SC)].

¶37

It is not disputed that the disease which caused the death of the deceased was diagnosed as 'Acute Myocardial Infarction”. “Myocardial Infarction” is commonly known as an age oriented natural disease, with a few exception. Therefore, in common parlance, death due to Myocardial Infarction is deemed to be a natural death. In our view, in cases where the workman dies as a result of natural disease or a particular disease, which he was suffering, unless it is proved by medical

¶38

M.F.A. No.102 of 2013

¶39

¶40

evidence that the natural disease, which the deceased was suffering, was aggravated or accelerated by the stress or strain or any kind of adverse circumstance or atmosphere from the employment, it cannot be held that the death arose out and in

¶41

the course of employment. The aforesaid factors, in connection with employment must have contributed to the aggravation or acceleration of the natural disease, at the time when it culminated in death. Thus, the proof of causal connection between the cause of death at that particular time, when death occurred and employment is sine qua non , when

¶42

the death was caused by natural disease, to claim compensation, under Workmen's Compensation Act. The above view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions.

¶43

Coming to the instant case, the only available evidence is that the death was caused by the disease “Acute Myocardial Infarction'. It is not disputed that he came on duty in the morning and at 8.30 a.m. he was taken to the hospital duet to chest pain. Absolutely, there is no evidence to prove that the said chest pain was caused by any kind of hard work

¶44

M.F.A. No.102 of 2013

¶45

¶46

or stress and strain in the office. In the absence of any evidence to prove the special reason for causing chest pain which culminated in to death, it cannot be held that the chest pain was caused by any kind of stress or hard work in the course of employment. In the absence of such evidence, it can be held that the death of the deceased would have happened even if he had been at home at that time. In other words, there is no causal connection between the death and the employment. We find that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation miserably failed to analyse the evidence, on record, in its correct perspective in view of Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order under challenge and this M.F.A will stand allowed.

¶47

K. HARILAL (JUDGE)

¶48

P. SOMARAJAN (JUDGE)

¶49

DMR/-

The Manager v. Vasantha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Vasantha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.K.Sreenivasan Vs Rugmini

Shobhanakumari K.C Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

K.a.Stanly Vs State of Kerala

The Deputy Director Vs M/S.Varun Impex Ltd.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajeevan.P.K. and Another

Krishnan K Vs Thajneesa