Where Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt, Benefit Must Go To The Accused: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction Lok Adalat Award Cannot Override Registered Lease Deed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Execution Petition for Eviction Deemed Conveyance Does Not Enlarge Title — Civil Court Must Adjudicate Ownership Disputes: Bombay High Court Common Intention Must Be Proved—No One Can Be Convicted Solely for Being Named Among a Group: Calcutta High Court Mere Abusive Language or Threat, Without Sexual Colour, Does Not Attract Section 354A IPC: Delhi High Court Forcing a Child to Carry the Trauma Is an Assault on Dignity: Gujarat High Court Allows Termination of 15-Week Pregnancy of 14-Year-Old Rape Survivor Framing of Charge is Not a Final Order, No Appeal Lies Under Section 14A of SC/ST Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Interest Earned from Axis Bank Is ‘Attributable’ to Credit Business – Not a Separate Source of Income: ITAT Chennai Grants 80P Deduction Must Be Proved, Not May Be Proved: Karnataka High Court Upholds Triple Murder Conviction On Complete Chain Of Circumstantial Evidence Statutory Scheme Overrides Hereditary Claims: Kerala High Court Upholds Executive Officer Appointment at Malamakkavu Ayyappa Temple No Mid-Stream Change In Examination Centre Once Exams Are Underway:  Orissa High Court Draws Line On Judicial Interference Forest Allegation Found Baseless, Petitioner Had Personal Grudge: NGT Dismisses Plea Alleging Illegal Mining in Raisen Protected Forest CPC Has No Role in Consumer Forums: National Commission Slams Procedural Missteps in Insurance Complaint Transfer Case Permit Is Not a Formality, It’s a Legal Necessity: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Insurer to ‘Pay and Recover’ for Accident Caused by Vehicle Plying Outside Authorized States A Compromise Before Court Is Not a Private Contract but a Solemn Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail Senior Citizens Misled with FD Promises Can’t Be Bound by Insurance Contracts: Chandigarh State Commission Upholds Full Refund with Interest No Specific Forum Under Trust Act to Adjudicate Election Disputes Involving Fraud: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction Mere Presence is Not Conspiracy: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Ganja Case Where Intermediate Quantity Alone Recovered from Accused Sufficient Cause Is Not a Matter of Sympathy, But Substance: Bombay High Court Rejects 645-Day Delay in Filing Review Petition

Only Doctors Can Judge Disability: Allahabad High Court Criticizes KESCO’s Non-Medical Panel for Denying Pension

12 September 2024 9:57 AM

By: sayum


High Court mandates the inclusion of medical expertise in disability evaluations, overturning KESCO’s rejection of a valid pension claim. In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court set aside the Kanpur Electricity Supply Company’s (KESCO) rejection of a family pension claim by a physically disabled petitioner. The court emphasized the necessity for medical expertise in evaluating disability claims, criticizing the decision by a non-medical committee to deny the pension.

The petitioner, Mohd. Jamil, who is physically disabled and entirely dependent on his parents, sought a family pension after the death of his mother. His father, an ex-employee of KESCO, retired in 1975 and passed away in 2003. The petitioner’s mother, who subsequently received the pension, died in 2013. Jamil applied for the pension shortly thereafter, supported by a medical certificate from the Chief Medical Officer of Kanpur Nagar confirming a 60% physical disability.

The court found that the petitioner had furnished a valid disability certificate from a competent medical authority, which should have been conclusive evidence of his eligibility for the pension. The court noted, “The committee constituted to evaluate the petitioner’s claim lacked any members with medical expertise, thereby rendering their assessment fundamentally flawed.”

The decision to reject the pension was based on the petitioner’s past operation of a Public Call Office (PCO), which the committee interpreted as evidence of his ability to earn a livelihood. The court highlighted that this interpretation was invalid as it did not consider the medical aspects of the petitioner’s disability. “A person’s past ability to engage in some form of livelihood does not negate the presence of a qualifying disability,” the court stated.

Justice Ajit Kumar emphasized that disability assessments for pension purposes must be conducted by qualified medical professionals. The court observed, “A medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer can only be contested by a similarly or more qualified medical board, not by administrative personnel without medical training.” The court also found that the non-medical committee’s conclusion was not supported by any counter-evidence or a second medical opinion.

Justice Kumar remarked, “The certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer certifying the petitioner’s 60% disability due to polio must be respected unless contested by a medical board with appropriate expertise.” The judgment criticized the respondent’s failure to adhere to these principles, stating, “The committee’s rejection of the pension claim was clearly unsustainable and lacked a basis in the relevant medical and legal standards.”

The Allahabad High Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that disability pensions are adjudicated based on proper medical assessments. The ruling mandates KESCO to grant the family pension to the petitioner within a month, setting a precedent for the proper handling of similar cases. This judgment reinforces the legal framework that protects the rights of disabled individuals to receive due benefits without unwarranted administrative obstruction.

Date of Decision: July 9, 2024

Mohd. Jamil vs. Managing Director Kanpur Electricity Supply Company (KESCO) and Others

Latest Legal News