SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the judgment dated 23. 12. 1999 passed in wca. KGF. FC. 15 of 1990 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, kolar District, allowing the claim petition for compensation. ( 2 ) THE respondent filed an application dated 4. 6. 1990 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, for grant of compensation in respect of the death of her son Shivanesan who was working in the appellant company as Blaster Assistant. He died on 8. 2. 1988, as a result of the employment injury, which he sustained on 27. 1. 1988. According to the claimant, her son who met with an accident on 27. 1. 1988 was admitted to BGML Hospital and he died on 8. 2. 1988 when he was in-patient in the hospital. According to the claimant, her son while on duty suffered lacerated injury and on account of these injuries, he died. As such, he died on account of the accidental injury in the course of the employment. ( 3 ) MR. A. S. Bopanna, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was suffering from the chronic nephrotic syndrome from 26. 8. 1987 and he was being treated periodically. All the three doctors who were examined on behalf of the appellant have stated that there was no nexus between the accidental injury and the death of Shivanesan. The death was only due to the disease chronic nephrotic syndrome. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Venugopal, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that as many as six sutures were put to the lacerated injury on the head. This goes to show that there was nexus between the death and the accidental injury. He further submitted that the Workmen's Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation. He went one step ahead by stating that even though the death was not on account of these injuries, the claimant should be given award as she is a poor lady having unmarried daughter and in the event they are not given any compensation, they will be thrown to the street and he relied upon a number of decisions. ( 5 ) IN view of these rival submissions, now it is to be seen whether there was any nexus between the accidental injury and the death of the deceased Shivanesan as he was suffering from chronic nephrotic syndrome. ( 5 ) IN view of these rival submissions, now it is to be seen whether there was any nexus between the accidental injury and the death of the deceased Shivanesan as he was suffering from chronic nephrotic syndrome. The second point that is to be considered is whether in accidental injury which is capable of causing death of the person, the claimant is entitled to any compensation. ( 6 ) THE admitted facts are that the deceased Shivanesan was working in BGML, k. G. F. Periodically, it is disclosed from the evidence that he was suffering from chronic nephrotic disease for which he was referred to many hospitals. It is also an admitted fact that on 27. 1. 1988 while blasting he received one injury on the head. This was a lacerated wound. He was treated as an outpatient for this one. In spite of the doctor's advise to come again for the treament, the deceased never went there. Mr. A. S. Bopanna, the learned counsel brought to my notice section 3 of the Workmen's compensation Act which is in respect of the employers liability for compensation. According to Mr. Bopanna, the employer shall not be so liable in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for the period exceeding three days. Relying upon this proviso, he further submitted that the deceased was treated only as an outpatient for one day. Subsequently, he was not treated at all as no treatment was required. If at all the injury was so grievous and if the deceased was incapacitated to attend to the work, he could have gone to the hospital. The hospital is being run by the company and the deceased was entitled to have the treatment. ( 7 ) NOW it is to be seen what is the evidence of the doctors who are examined on behalf of the appellant. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to Dr. Rajgopal, he knew the deceased. He had been suffering from nephrotic syndrome. The deceased was suffering from this disease since long. This disease weakens the heart and the respiratory system. If this disease aggravates, the other parts of the body also would be severely affected. He further stated that the deceased was suffering from this disease right from 1986. There are records to show that he was suffering from this disease. The deceased was suffering from this disease since long. This disease weakens the heart and the respiratory system. If this disease aggravates, the other parts of the body also would be severely affected. He further stated that the deceased was suffering from this disease right from 1986. There are records to show that he was suffering from this disease. It is also stated that whenever the patient comes to the hospital, he would bring the book and after getting examined and after entries are made, the book is kept in the compounding room. Whenever the deceased came to the hospital, the blood pressure was checked. On each visit all the details were entered in the book. He has also stated that about seven to eight times, he was admitted as an indoor patient. Exh. R-2 is the inpatient chart at serial No. 14. This doctor further states that on 27. 1. 88, the deceased came to the hospital for the treatment of lacerated wound which was on the scalp. He was examined as an outpatient. Further, he was also advised to come on the next day. But the deceased did not turn up. On 29. 1. 1988, the deceased came to the hospital, the medicines were given, and the wound was dressed. Again, he was instructed to come to the hospital on the next day that is, on 30. 1. 1988. He has clearly stated that this lacerated wound has not caused any -kind of imbalance to the health of the deceased. He has emphatically stated that it is impossible to die on account of the injury on the scalp. On 30. 1. 1988, when the deceased came to the hospital, his blood pressure was 240/140. The doctor came to the conclusion that the blood pressure was on the higher side, as such, he was sent to the medical officer. The reason for this was nephrotic syndrome. On the same day, the deceased was advised to get himself admitted but, he refused. However, on 1. 2. 1988, he was admitted as an indoor patient. The records are at Exh. R-3. ( 9 ) THE treatment was started to treat nephrotic syndrome. However, on 8. 2. 1988 at 6 p. m. , Shivanesan breathed his last. The doctor has further stated that the cause of death was chronic nephrotic syndrome with uraemia hypertension. The cause of death is mentioned in Exh. The records are at Exh. R-3. ( 9 ) THE treatment was started to treat nephrotic syndrome. However, on 8. 2. 1988 at 6 p. m. , Shivanesan breathed his last. The doctor has further stated that the cause of death was chronic nephrotic syndrome with uraemia hypertension. The cause of death is mentioned in Exh. R-1 and also in Exh. R-3. ( 10 ) AFTER examining the deceased on 2. 2. 1987, a certificate was given stating that he was fit to work up to 13. 5. 1987. Again, he was subjected to medical test and the doctor came to the opinion that he was only capable of working for a period of three months. The relevant documents are at Exhs. R-4 and R-5. When he was examined by another doctor by name Ranga charyulu was present. ( 11 ) ). It is in the evidence of Dr. Rajendra Kumar that the deceased Shivanesan was suffering from 1981 from this nephrotic syndrome and that he could not be cured completely. But there was no impediment to attend to the work. From 1983 to 1987, the deceased had suffered from this disease, as such, he was indoor patient in BGML Hospital. The deceased was advised to go to Victoria Hospital. Also at his own expenses, he took treatment at CMC hospital, Vellore. When this nephrotic syndrome aggravated, the deceased developed leprosy. It is in the evidence of this doctor that the deceased was always suffering from high blood pressure and it was not possible to bring it under control. The doctor has also stated that on 27. 1. 1988 the deceased had come to the hospital. He was treated in the surgical ward and he was advised to come on 30. 1. 1988. When he was again admitted, he was in failing health. This doctor also has stated that the cause of death was chronic nephrotic syndrome with uraemia hypertension. The relevant document is at Exh. R-l. This doctor is extensively cross-examined but nothing material is elicited and that is elicited in a way is beneficial to the other side. The only suggestion is that while he was engaged in blasting, the deceased received injury and on account of this injury, he died. This suggestion is denied by this doctor. Another doctor is by name Dr. Ranga-charyulu. He corroborates the evidence of other two doctors. The only suggestion is that while he was engaged in blasting, the deceased received injury and on account of this injury, he died. This suggestion is denied by this doctor. Another doctor is by name Dr. Ranga-charyulu. He corroborates the evidence of other two doctors. He also states that the deceased was suffering from nephrotic syndrome and the injury he suffered was not at all the cause for the death of the deceased. ( 12 ) THE sum and substance of all these doctors is that right from 1987 the deceased was suffering from nephrotic syndrome. He was treated a number of times. He was always suffering from high blood pressure. Even from the evidence of Dr. Rajendra kumar, on account of the aggravation of the disease, the deceased had developed leprosy. It is borne out from the records that the deceased did not follow the instructions even for the treatment of the lacerated wound. When all these doctors say that the death was only on account of the nephrotic syndrome and when such is the evidence, it is difficult to accept the submission of Mr. D. Venugopal that the lacerated wound on the scalp caused the death. He was very emphatic and laid much emphasis on the sutures that were put on the scalp. It appears from his statement because the sutures were put, the injury was deadly and it was sufficient to cause the death of the person. Normally, it is known that the lacerated injury cannot cause the death of the person. The lacerated wound has nothing to do with the consequences that it produces. The injury might be small but it may be deadly. When three doctors in unequivocal terms state that there was no nexus between the injury caused on 27. 1. 1988 and the nephrotic syndrome suffering from 1987, it becomes rather difficult to believe that there was any nexus for the death of the deceased. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel Mr. D. Venugopal relied upon a number of decisions. When three doctors in unequivocal terms state that there was no nexus between the injury caused on 27. 1. 1988 and the nephrotic syndrome suffering from 1987, it becomes rather difficult to believe that there was any nexus for the death of the deceased. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel Mr. D. Venugopal relied upon a number of decisions. By reiterating that the Workmen's Compensation act is a beneficial one and the employee or the dependant should not be denied of the compensation, he relied upon the decision in case of Superintending Engineer, keb, Hubli v. Kadappa Mallappa, 1981 karllj 179: 1983 ACJ 682 (Karnataka), wherein, it is stated:"workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, sections 11, 4-A (1) Doubt in the mind of employer about injury sustained by employee Duty of the employer in such cases What is the 'due date' for payment of compensation. Held: the Workmen's Compensation Act being one for the benefit of the workmen, the legislature in its wisdom has evolved a method for the employer to satisfy himself about the injury sustained by the workman. In case the employer doubts bona fides of the workman, he may get him examined by a competent medical practitioner free of cost. The employer cannot demand of the workman a medical certificate. It is precisely to avoid such a contingency that section 11 (1) of the Act is incorporated in the statute. "the tenor of this dictum clearly indicates that the facts of the cited case and the facts of the case on hand are entirely different. It cannot be said that the employer in this case was negligent. Immediately, medical attendance was given. Even for other disease also, the treatment was given. At any time, the employer has not called upon the employee/claimant and demanded any medical certificate and, on the other hand, as many as three doctors are examined and they have opined as discussed supra. Therefore, in my opinion this decision is not at all applicable. ( 14 ) FURTHER, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision in case of Director (T and M), D. N. K. Project v. D . Therefore, in my opinion this decision is not at all applicable. ( 14 ) FURTHER, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision in case of Director (T and M), D. N. K. Project v. D . Buchitalli, 1986 Orissa LLJ 259: 1988 acj 654 (Orissa), wherein, it is stated as follows:"workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, sections 2 (1) (d), 3 (1) Accident arising out of and 'in the course of employment' Deceased employee having heart disease died while coming out of factory Strain and stress of work is accelerating factor to death Employer liable to pay compensation. "in my opinion this decision is also not applicable for the reason that the deceased was suffering from nephrotic syndrome from 26. 8. 1987 itself when he was treated. He was also given to an understanding that he could not work for more than three months. The case on hand has got different set of facts. Here, while he was on duty, he suffered from an accident. When such is the case, it is to be examined whether this injury could cause any stress and strain and lead to his death. The medical history is diametrically opposite. He was already suffering from the deadly disease. When such is the case, it cannot be said that a mere lacerated injury could cause the death of the deceased. Mr. D. Venugopal again relied upon one more decision in case of new India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. K. Abdullakutty, 1993 Lab IC 761, wherein it is stated as follows:" (A) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, section 4 (1) (c) (ii) Injuries sustained by workman not covered by schedule I Commissioner alone and not doctor is competent to adjudicate question of loss of earning power medical certificate. "at the cost of repetition, it has to be stated that this decision is also not applicable to the case on hand. Subsequent to these decisions, the position of law has changed. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is a layman. Even assuming that he has got some medical knowledge, he cannot outweigh the experts in the medical field. In the case on hand, the question is the nexus for the death between the lacerated injury and the nephrotic syndrome. Hence, this is also not applicable. ( 15 ) NO doubt, Mr. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is a layman. Even assuming that he has got some medical knowledge, he cannot outweigh the experts in the medical field. In the case on hand, the question is the nexus for the death between the lacerated injury and the nephrotic syndrome. Hence, this is also not applicable. ( 15 ) NO doubt, Mr. Venugopal tried his best to make out a case out of a case, which does not give him any scope to stretch his argument. Left with no option, he canvassed that even if there is no accidental injury, once the death takes place during the course of the employment, the legal representatives are entitled to claim the compensation. Though the learned counsel has held his heart out in the hand to show that heart is throbbing on account of the loss of the deceased, then also, the court has to think about the facts and about the law. In the name of the beneficial legislation, the court cannot go out of Laxman Rekha. In other words, this argument is also not acceptable. ( 16 ) AT the cost of repetition, it has to be held that there is no nexus between the accidental injury and the cause of death. The appellant is liable to succeed in spite of the best efforts made by the other side. Therefore, the following order is passed: in the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award is set aside. The balance amount that is in deposit be refunded to the appellant. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .