( 1 ) THE Petitioner Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short the LIC) is aggrieved by an order dated 23rd December, 1999 passed by the Chief Commissioner for Disabilities under the Persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Pull participation) Act, 1995 (the Act) in Case No. 93 of 1999. A letter filed by the LIC for review of this order was turned down by the Deputy Chief commissioner on 9 March, 2000.

( 2 ) PURSUANT to an advertisement, Respondent No. 2 submitted an application for the post of a Peon sometime in February-March, 1997. The application was accompanied by a certificate issued by the Chief medical Officer, Ghaziabad (and also signed by an orthopaedic surgeon and an eye specialist) to the effect that Respondent No. 2 is a case of chorea and that he is 45% disabled.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 was called by the LIC for a written test and an interview, both of which he passed. He was then put to a prerecruitment medical examination in July, 1997 by the doctors attached to the LIC. The Medical Examiner recorded a note that he had personally examined Respondent No. 2 and gave his findings as under -

" CHOREA: Patient is suffering from Huntington chorea. This is slowly progressive disease and requires life long medication. (He is not taking any medication ). This may respond to Haloperidol. Long term psychological support and even institutional care may be required as dementia progresses, which has already started to some extent. He is acceptable only if permanent sheltered employment is available. Has already 45% disability and is likely to increase. In my opinion unfit. However, ZMR opinion is needed. "

( 4 ) THE case of Respondent No. 2 was then referred to the divisional Medical Referee and the Zonal Medical Referee of the LIC. While their reports are not on record, it appears that they concurred with the Medical Examiner and found Respondent No. 2 unfit for employment as a peon with the LIC. Respondent No. 2 was informed accordingly by a letter dated 22nd September, 1997.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 then lodged a complaint under Section 59 of the Act with the Chief Commissioner about the failure of the LIC to appoint him. The LIC was asked by the Chief Commissioner to respond to the complaint made by Respondent No. 2, which it did. The Chief commissioner then gave a personal hearing to the parties on 14 October, 1999,

( 6 ) DURING the hearing on 14th October, 1999, Respondent No. 2 produced before the Chief Commissioner a certificate dated 9th October, 1999 issued by the Director, VIMHANS to the effect that Respondent no. 2 had been examined by him and found to be "a case of non- progressive Dystonia affecting head and upper limbs. He appears mentally normal and medically suitable for being employed as a Peon. "

( 7 ) IN view of the conflicting medical opinion, the Chief commissioner took a decision which he communicated to the LIC by a letter dated 5th November, 1999. The sum and substance of this communication was that Respondent No. 2 was required to undergo a fresh medical examination by a Medical Board of a Government Hospital and a report thereof submitted to the Chief Commissioner before 30th december, 1999. The directions given by the Chief Commissioner are as follows:-

"1. Life Insurance Corporation would subject the complainant Mr. Harish Chander Dabral to a fresh medical examination by a Special Medical Board of a Govt. hospital comprising experts from the field of neuroscience, orthopedics and psychiatry. 2. The complainant would be subjected to necessary objective, medical and psychological tests such as LQ. Test, behaviour test, movement test, CT scant, MMR, whichever is necessary in the opinion of the Medical Board, to ascertain the correct physical, neurological and intellectual condition of Mr. Dabral. 3. The medical report must reflect:- * The percentage of disability, separately, in each affected part and also the total percentage on adding percentage of the disa