This appeal by the Manager, Silcoorie Tea Estate is directed against the judgment and order dated U. 8. 84 passed by the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Cachar, Silchar, whereby the respondent has been allowed compensation of Rs. 7,056/-. 2. Briefly, the relevant facts are that the respondent Smti Bimola Roy was a worker in the Silcoorie Tea Estate. On 2. 12. 79 while she was engaged in pruning tea bushes, a piece of cut tea branch hit her left eye causing injury. She was taken to the Garden Hospital and treated for 24 days, and as she did not get any relief, she was sent to the Silchar Medical College Hospital for treatment. She was admitted on 27.12.79 and was discharged on 24. 1. 80 against medical advice. At the time of discharge, she had some vision, but subsequently she had lost the vision of her left eye and accordingly she claimed compensation. The appellant had resisted the claim, mainly on the ground that the respondent had not undertaken full treatment and she had left the Medical College Hospital, Silchar against medical advice which had resulted in total loss of vision of her left eye, and consequently in view of the provision of section 11 (6) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, hereinafter referred as the 'Act', the respondent was not entitled to any compensation. It was also pleaded that the respondent was getting full wages as before and that there had been no adverse effect on her capability to earn on account of loss of vision in the left eye. On consideration of the materials produced before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, it was held that the management was responsible and liable for compensation for the injury sustained by the respondent. The compensation was fixed at Rs. 7,056/-. 3. Aggrieved, the management has come in appeal, and Sri S. K. Senapati, learned counsel appearing on its behalf, has submitted that the respondent had not undertaken the full treatment and had left the hospital against medical advice and as such under the provisions of section 11 (6) of the Act, she was not entitled to any compensation.
7,056/-. 3. Aggrieved, the management has come in appeal, and Sri S. K. Senapati, learned counsel appearing on its behalf, has submitted that the respondent had not undertaken the full treatment and had left the hospital against medical advice and as such under the provisions of section 11 (6) of the Act, she was not entitled to any compensation. On careful consideration, I have not found it reasonable to accept the submission, mainly because the respondent had undergone treatment for about 24 days at the Tea Garden Hospital itself without any improvement and subsequently had also undergone treatment for about a month at Silchar Medical College Hospital, also it appears without any substantial improvement in her condition. The mere fact that at the time of discharge she had some vision in her left eye does not mean, that she had responded to the treatment or that her subsequent loss of vision in the left eye was due to the fact that she had discontinued treatment. As a matter of fact, Dr. S. R. Das, Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology under whom the respondent was under treatment, hail testified that it was very difficult to say whether she could have recovered if she had continued the treatment. I have, therefore, not found it reasonably possible to accept that just because she had discontinued the treatment and come out of the hospital against medical advice, she should not be entitled 'to any compensation. As said before, she had undergone treatment for about two months without any appreciable improvement. 4. Sri S. K. Senapati, learned counsel for the appellant, has further submitted that the respondent had been getting the same wages as before and loss of vision in her left eye did not materially affect her to earning capacity, and as such there was no liability for compensation on the appellant. 5. The respondent has lost total vision in the left eye and although one can carry on usual work with the other good eye, it does not mean that the person's vision is normal and as such it should not be' said that the respondent's capability or capacity had not been affected. For the same reason, the fact the wages had remained the same also would not mean that she was not entitled to compensation for loss of vision in the left eye. 6.
For the same reason, the fact the wages had remained the same also would not mean that she was not entitled to compensation for loss of vision in the left eye. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal fails and is dismissed.