Skip to content


Shobhanaben D. Dange Vs. the Chief Medical Officer and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported inII(1984)ACC334
AppellantShobhanaben D. Dange
RespondentThe Chief Medical Officer and anr.
Excerpt:
- - therefore, in our opinion, the learned judge was right in holding that the appellant has failed to prove that dr......preferred the aforesaid appeal.3. the main question which requires decision is whether dr. mrs. dange received injuries during the course of her employment or arising out of her employment with the respondents. for proving this, the appellant has relied upon the evidence of two doctors. one is dr. mukesh dhirajlai vaishnav who is examined at exh. 24. it is his say that he had examined dr. mrs. dange on 14-3-80 and that he had given the certificate ex. 27. it is his say that dr. mrs. dange was complaining of pain because of slip disc and that it may be because of hard work. another is dr. rajendra mohanlal desai who is examined at ex. 31 and he has given the certificates exs. 25,30 and 32. he has also admitted that it is not possible to say any specific reason for the disease of dr......
Judgment:

M.B. Shah, J.

1. An application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was filed by Dr. Mrs. Shobhanaben B. Dange, who pending hearing and final disposal of the said application died, for compensation contending that she was appointed by the respondents C.J. Hospital, Surendranagar, on a monthly salary of Rs. 675/- inclusive of all allowances from 25th September 1978. This Hospital was run by a public Trust named Tabibi Rahat Mandal. It was her contention that this establishment was covered under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 and as per Section 38-A the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act would be applicable to the respondent trust establishment, It was her contention that during the course of her employment and arising out of her employment she received injuries and was suffering from disclasion or slip disc. It is the contention of the appellant who is the heir of the deceased Dr. Mrs. Shobhanaben Dange that because of the hard work Dr. Mrs. Dange developed hyper tension, acidity etc. and subsequently she expired.

2. The Commissioner for workmen's compensation and Civil Judge (S.D.), Surendranagar by his judgment and order dated 3rd November 1982 rejected the said application by holding that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act were not applicable to the respondent establishment. He further held that Dr. Mrs. Dange had not received the injuries during the course of her employment and arising out of her employment with the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the applicant has preferred the aforesaid appeal.

3. The main question which requires decision is whether Dr. Mrs. Dange received injuries during the course of her employment or arising out of her employment with the respondents. For proving this, the appellant has relied upon the evidence of two Doctors. One is Dr. Mukesh Dhirajlai Vaishnav who is examined at exh. 24. It is his say that he had examined Dr. Mrs. Dange on 14-3-80 and that he had given the certificate Ex. 27. It is his say that Dr. Mrs. Dange was complaining of pain because of slip disc and that it may be because of hard work. Another is Dr. Rajendra Mohanlal Desai who is examined at ex. 31 and he has given the certificates exs. 25,30 and 32. He has also admitted that it is not possible to say any specific reason for the disease of Dr. Mrs. Dange. According to him, there are number of reasons for the disease of slip disc. There is no other evidence on record to show or prove that Dr. Mrs. Dange received any injury arising out of and during the course of her employment with the respondents which had caused slip disc. There is no evidence on record to show that during the course of her employment injury had resulted from risk incidental to her duties which unless so engaged she would not have otherwise suffered. It can be said that she died of the disease from which she suffered and not because of her duties as a lady Doctor in the Hospital and that there was no causal connection between the employment and the death independently of the bodily ailment. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Judge was right in holding that the appellant has failed to prove that Dr. Mrs. Dange received injuries during the course of her employment or arising out of her employment with the respondents and was right in dismissing the application.

4. In view of the above discussion, it is not necessary to consider that at the relevant time i.e. in 1978-79 the Bombay Shops and Establishment act was applicable to the respondent Hospital and thereby in view of Section 38-A the Workmen's Compensation Act was applicable to Assistant Lady Medical Officer Dr. Mrs. Dange. However, the learned advocate for the appellant contended that recently in 1983-84 Government has issued notification that to the hospitals the Bombay Shops and Establishments act would be applicable. In our view, this contention deserves to be rejected as there is no question of retrospective application of the said act.

5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //