Dismissed

M.Kumaresan v. P.Anbu

Madras HC2 Sept 2024CRP/3472/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench held that under the *Prabhu* judgment, parties must appear before a Medical Board constituted by the Dean of Government Medical Colleges for disability assessment. Dismissing the petition, this court found no error in the trial judge's order which complied with this precedent.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition closed. No costs.

M.Kumaresan Vs P.Anbu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P. (PD) No.3472 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 02.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P. (PD) No.3472 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.18796 of 2024

M.Kumaresan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.P.Anbu

2.Cholamandalam Ms. Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2^nd Floor, N.S.C. Bose Road

¶12

Chennai – 600 001.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 03.03.2023 made in M.P.No.2 of 2021 in M.C.O.P.No.4492 of 2013 on the file of the III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr.J.Mahalingam

¶16

ORDER

¶17

A Division Bench of this Court in the Branch Manager, M/s.TATA

¶18

AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Prabhu and Ors., (C.M.A.No.2380 of

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

Page No.1 of 4

¶21

C.R.P. (PD) No.3472 of 2024

¶22

2015 dated 12.04.2016) has laid down the law in clear and categorical manner that with respect to the percentage of disability, even if a certificate is produced from a Doctor, the parties have to be directed to appear before a Medical Board duly constituted by the Dean of the Government Medical Colleges. The Division Bench also held that a certificate of disability given by such Medical Board is to be received in evidence unless and until, exceptional circumstances are made out, to doubt the percentage of disability that has been fixed by the Medical Board.

¶23

In the present case, the petitioner has taken out this application seeking for the examination of the Chief Doctor, Department of Neurology, Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Park Town, Chennai, and one Dr.Saravana Bavanathan, M.S.(Neurology) for assessing the petitioner and to issue a disability certificate.

¶24

The Judgment of this Court in Prabhu's case referred above, makes

¶25

it clear that to declare the percentage of disability, the parties would have to

¶26

appear before the Medical Board.

¶27

The learned Trial Judge has taken them into consideration and has

¶28

partly allowed the application, to issue summons to the Chief Doctor, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

Page No.2 of 4

¶30

C.R.P. (PD) No.3472 of 2024

¶31

Department of Neurology, Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Park Town, Chennai. I do not find any error in the order as he has followed the Division Bench Judgment of this Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

02.09.2024

¶33

Jer

¶34

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral citation : Yes / No

¶35

¶36

The III Judge, Court of Small Causes Chennai.

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

Page No.3 of 4

¶39

C.R.P. (PD) No.3472 of 2024

¶40

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J., Jer

¶41

C.R.P. (PD) No.3472 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.18796 of 2024

¶42

02.09.2024

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

Page No.4 of 4

M.Kumaresan v. P.Anbu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kumaresan v. P.Anbu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Sathyashree Vs Mamata Laddha

A.Vijayakumar Vs Chandirakanthi

Rajendran Vs Venkatesan

S. Priya Vs M. Franklin

J. Kottammal Vs v. Lakshmanan

M/s. Aee Casting Ltd., Vs S.P. Nachiappan