Act Nowhere Mandates Certificate By Treating Doctor : Bombay High Court Revives Workman’s Compensation Claim

“Rejection Of Entire Claim On This Sole Ground Is Erroneous”, In a significant ruling under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, the Bombay High Court has held that a disability certificate cannot be discarded merely because it was issued by a doctor who did not treat the injured workman.

Justice Jitendra Jain set aside the Commissioner’s order rejecting the compensation claim solely on this ground and remanded the matter for limited reconsideration of the percentage of loss of earning capacity.

The Court categorically held that the Act requires a certificate from a “qualified medical practitioner” and does not mandate that such practitioner must have treated the injured.

The appellant-workman was employed at a construction site in Thane. On 22 March 2010, while carrying out work, he fell and suffered back injuries. He was hospitalized at Lok Hospital, Thane from 22 March 2010 to 29 March 2010.

He filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation seeking compensation of ₹5,95,584/- jointly and severally from the employer and insurer.

Evidence was led by both sides. However, the Commissioner dismissed the entire application on the sole ground that the disability certificate had been issued by a doctor who had not treated the injured, even though that doctor had entered the witness box and deposed.

All issues — including employer-employee relationship and whether the accident occurred in the course of employment — were decided against the applicant solely because of the disability certificate.

Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court.

“Whether Commissioner Was Justified?” – Substantial Question Of Law Framed

Although the appeal had been admitted in 2014, no substantial question of law had been framed at that stage. Justice Jain framed the following question at the time of hearing:

“Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in rejecting the application for compensation on the sole ground that the disability certificate was issued by a doctor who did not attend to the injured applicant?”

The Court answered this question in the negative.

“No Provision Requires Certificate Only From Treating Doctor”

Examining Section 4(1)(c)(ii) and Explanation II of the Employees’ Compensation Act, along with the definition of “qualified medical practitioner” under Section 2(1)(i), the Court noted that the statute only requires certification by a “qualified medical practitioner.”

Justice Jain observed:

“I have not been shown any provision in the Act nor any provision has been referred to in the judgment which states that the disability certificate has to be issued only by the doctor who attended the injured.”

The Court emphasised that the doctor who issued the certificate was admittedly a qualified medical practitioner within the meaning of the Act.

The purpose of such certification, the Court noted, is to obtain expert assistance in determining the percentage of disability and loss of earning capacity.

“Such Doctor Is Always Open For Cross-Examination”

Rejecting the Commissioner’s approach, the Court clarified that a qualified medical practitioner who has not treated the injured can still assess disability based on medical records and examination.

“A qualified medical practitioner 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 loss of earning capacity or disability. Such a doctor is always open for cross examination.”

In the present case, the doctor had entered the witness box and was subjected to cross-examination. Therefore, discarding the entire claim on this technical ground was impermissible.

Commissioner’s Approach Held Legally Unsustainable

The High Court found it particularly troubling that the Commissioner had decided all issues — including those unrelated to disability — against the workman solely because the certificate was issued by a non-treating doctor.

The Court observed that issues such as employer-employee relationship and whether the accident occurred in the course of employment “do not have any relation whatsoever with respect to the disability certificate.”

The rejection of the entire claim on this sole reasoning was therefore legally erroneous.

Reliance On Karnataka High Court Decision

Justice Jain relied on the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in Mukesh Kumar v. Kulhari Tours and Travels Prof. Mahipal Singh & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 808, where it was held:

“There is no provision in the Act mandating assessment of loss of earning capacity only by a doctor who has treated the workman and there is no bar for consideration of deposition of any qualified medical practitioner who examined the claimant and substantiates the disability.”

The Bombay High Court found this reasoning persuasive and applicable.

Limited Remand: Other Issues Closed

Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the order dated 19 June 2012 and remanded the matter to the Commissioner only for the limited purpose of determining the percentage of loss of earning capacity and calculating compensation on the basis of evidence already on record.

Importantly, the Court clarified that no other issue — including employer-employee relationship or occurrence of accident in the course of employment — would be reopened.

The Commissioner has been directed to dispose of the application on or before 30 June 2026.

This judgment reinforces that the Employees’ Compensation Act must be interpreted pragmatically and not defeated by technicalities unsupported by statutory text. The Act requires certification by a “qualified medical practitioner” — not necessarily the treating doctor.

By correcting the Commissioner’s hyper-technical approach, the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that substantive justice under welfare legislation cannot be sacrificed at the altar of procedural rigidity.

Date of Decision: 25 February 2026