The main legal point established is the necessity of referring claimants to the medical board for cases not covered by the schedule of injuries under the Employees' Compensation Act, in order to reduce uncertainty in determining just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 11th September, 2017, passed in I.A.No.52 of 2017, in E.C.No. 34 of 2016, by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour – I) at Chennai.)

1. This civil revision petition has been filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the dismissal of its application to refer the claimant to the medical board for its opinion in order to enable the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation to arrive at the just compensation payable to the claimant.

2. The original petition in E.C.No.34 of 2016 was filed by the first respondent herein seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that took place during the course of his employment. The claim is being opposed by the petitioner / Insurance company on various grounds. The nature and gravity of the injuries suffered by the claimant are also disputed by the Insurance Company. Even in the objections filed by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company has sought for referring the claimant to the medical board as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Prabhu and another reported in (2016) 1 TNMAC 609. During trial, after examination of the claimant, the Insurance Company filed the instant application in I.A.No.52 of 2017 seeking reference to the medical board.

3. This was opposed by the claimant primarily contending that the reference to the medical board is wholly unnecessary in the light of the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 particularly, the schedule thereto, which provides for a fixed percentage of disability for certain injuries. Therefore, it is the contention of the claimant that unlike cases arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, the discretion vested in the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation to refuse ascertaining of disability is very narrow and therefore, reference to medical board is not necessary. It is the further contention of the claimant that reference to the medical board will unnecessarily delay the proceedings, which would cause substantial prejudice to the claimant. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation passed an order dated 11.09.2017, dismissed the application concluding that the application is pre-mature. The need or otherwise for an evaluation by the medical board can be decided after the evidence of the Doctor to be examined on the side of the claimant. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation also concluded that if the evidence of the Doctor, who is examined by the claimant is credible and acceptable, reference to the medical board is not necessary. It is against this order, the Insurance Company has come up with this revision.

4. I have heard Mr.J.Micheal Visuvasam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel for the first respondent. Second respondent though served, is not appearing either in person or through counsel, duly instructed.

5. Mr.J.Micheal Visuvasam, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend in view of the provisions of Section, 4(i)(c)(ii) of the Employees' Compensation Act, in cases of injuries not specified in schedule I, the percentage of compensation has to be assessed by a qualified medical practitioner. This provision involves a certain amount of guess work in determining the percentage of disability caused by the injury. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the reference to the medical board is essential to enable the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation to determine the compensation payable to the claimant precisely. He would also invite my attention to Section 11 of the Act, which enables the employer to subject the injured employee to medical examination by a qualified medical practitioner. Pointing out that the medical examination contemplated under Section 11 has to be conducted by the employer and today after the expan