IMPORTANT POINT
The ESI Corporation must ensure adequate medical facilities for insured persons and their families, including the establishment of dispensaries as mandated by the ESI Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sunita Agarwal, CJ.

Heard Ms. Deepmala S. Desai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and perused the record. Mr. Sachin D. Vasavada, learned advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 5, namely the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC).

2. The present petition has been filed with the prayers as follows :-

“(b) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to provide the Insured persons with adequate medical facilities under the ESI Act and the rules framed thereunder to ensure that they are not deprived of their right to health and medical care.

(C) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue order or direction to provide Mobile Dispensary Vans in the necessary affected areas of Vadodara District immediately till adequate medical facilities as per provisions of ESI Act are not provided.

(d) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to pay the Insured persons compensation for the loss and suffering caused to them due to the denial of medical facilities under the ESI Act.”

2.1. As per the statement made in the writ petition, the petitioner claims to be a social worker, working for the cause of the workers covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. It is stated that the petitioner has raised various issues/complaints on Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and Employees’ State Insurance Scheme (ESIS) and other labour related issues for many years and has served as Advisory Committee Member of the ESI Dispensary as well as ESI Hospital, Gotri, Vadodara for several years in the past at different points of time. The further statement is that the petitioner is Director of People’s Training and Research Centre, a non-profit registered organization under the Public Charitable Trust Act established in the year 1992, working on occupational health and safety. Earlier also, one writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation being Special Civil Application No. 2415 of 1995 was filed by the petitioner as a representative of ‘Vyavsayik Swasthay Surakasha Mandal’, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.11.2009.

2.2. A perusal of the order dated 02.11.2009 passed in the aforesaid writ petition appended at page ‘50’ of the paper book indicates that in the said writ petition, the prayer was to declare the Government Resolution dated 01.12.1994 as illegal and to direct the authorities to continue the ESIS Dispensary which was closed down. However, the said writ petition has been disposed of as infructuous due to subsequent development taken place with the passage of time.

3. Be that as it may, the issues raised in the present writ petition is about strict implementation of Section 56 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “ESI Act”), which mandates the Corporation to provide medical benefits to the insured persons. Sections 56, 58, 59A and, 59B are relevant to be noted herein-under.

“56. Medical benefit----(1) An insured person or (where such medical benefit is extended to his family) a member of his family whose condition requires medical treatment and attendance shall be entitled to receive medical benefit.

(2) Such medical benefit may be given either in the form of out-patient treatment and attendance in a hospital or dispensary, clinic or other institution or by visits to the home of the insured person or treatment as in-patient in a hospital or other institution.

(3) A person shall be entitled to medical benefit during any [period] for which contributions are payable in respect of him or in which he is qualified to claim sickness benefit or maternity benefit [or is in receipt of such disablement benefit as does not disentitle him to medical benefit under the regulations]:

Provided that a person in respect of whom contribution ceases to be payable under this Act may be