Back
Bombay HC: Disability Certificate from Non-Treating Doctor Can't Doom Worker's Compensation Claim
In a significant ruling for injured workers, the has overturned a lower commissioner's blanket rejection of a compensation claim, holding that a disability certificate issued by a —even one who didn't personally treat the injured employee—is valid evidence under the . Justice Jitendra Jain, in Mahendra Sabharu Majhi v. & Anr. (First Appeal No. 1627 of 2012), remanded the case back for proper assessment, emphasizing expert evaluation over rigid technicalities.
From Construction Fall to Courtroom Battle
Mahendra Sabharu Majhi, a 27-year-old laborer from Odisha, was working at a Thane construction site for employer in . While on duty, he fell, suffering severe back injuries, and was hospitalized at Lok Hospital, Thane, from . Majhi filed a claim for Rs. 5,95,584 against his employer and insurer before the .
The commissioner dismissed the claim outright in , ruling against Majhi on all fronts—including employment relationship and accident occurrence—solely because the disability certificate came from a doctor who hadn't treated him at the hospital. Despite the doctor testifying and facing , the commissioner discarded the evidence. Majhi appealed in 2012, with the high court framing the key question in 2026: Was the rejection justified on that ground alone?
Appellant's Plea: Expertise Over Treatment History
Majhi's counsel, , argued that the Employees’ Compensation Act doesn't mandate certificates only from treating doctors. She highlighted , which require assessment by a “ ” as defined in —anyone registered under relevant medical laws. The doctor in question fit this bill, examined records, assessed , and testified a year later. Nichani cited a precedent, Mukesh Kumar v. Kulhari Tours and Travels (2025 SCC OnLine Kar 808), affirming no such restriction exists, allowing any qualified expert's input.
Respondent No. 1 (employer) appeared via , but insurer Bajaj Allianz skipped hearings despite notice, leading to an . The respondents implicitly defended the commissioner's stance on the certificate's invalidity, but the court found no substantive counter to the statutory interpretation.
Decoding the Act: No 'Treating Doctor' Mandate
Justice Jain dissected the Act, noting no provision demands treatment history for certification. “I have not been shown any provision in the Act... which states that the disability certificate has to be issued only by the doctor who attended the injured,” he wrote. The purpose? Securing an impartial expert opinion on disability percentage for compensation calculation.
The court criticized the commissioner for tainting unrelated issues—like employment ties and accident circumstances—with the certificate flaw. A non-treating expert can rely on records, examine the worker, and withstand , ensuring reliability. Echoing the Karnataka ruling, Jain stressed: the Act bars no qualified practitioner from assessing disability.
Key Observations from the Bench
-
“There is no dispute that the doctor who issued the disability certificate in the present case is a . 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.”
-
“A who has not treated the injured can always give evidence on the basis of the medical reports of the injured and give a certificate on the or disability. Such a doctor is always open for cross examination.”
-
“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 is set aside and is remanded back to the Commissioner for the limited purpose of considering the evidence on record and giving a finding on .”
Remand with a Deadline: A Fresh Chance for Justice
Answering the substantial question in Majhi's favor, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the 2012 order, and directed the commissioner to reassess disability percentage using the doctor's evidence—without revisiting other settled issues. Majhi must appear on , with disposal by .
This decision broadens access to compensation for blue-collar workers, preventing technical dismissals and reinforcing the Act's protective intent. As media summaries note, it underscores that expert certification trumps treatment technicalities, potentially easing claims in construction and labor sectors where records may vary.
