Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 3928 (MAD)

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Arul

2011-09-09

K.VENKATARAMAN

body2011
JUDGMENT : K. Venkataraman, J. The insurance company before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (learned III Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai, aggrieved over the order made by the said Tribunal in dismissing its application for referring the claimant to the Medical Board, is before this court by filing the present civil revision petition. The respondent No. 1 herein has filed a claim application before the above referred Tribunal claiming compensation for the injury suffered by him in an accident. He has examined three doctors to support his case. On behalf of the petitioner herein, one doctor was examined. While so, an application was taken out by the petitioner for referring the claimant to the Medical Board setting out the following reasons: (3) I submit that the petitioner had examined three doctors to assess the disability for the injuries sustained by him in the head. Dr. Saravana Bhavanandam, Civil Surgeon, has assessed the disability at 65 per cent for the head injury. Dr. Rajappa, Ophthalmic Surgeon, has assessed the disability at 40 per cent for the eye injury. Dr. Adalarasu, ENT, has assessed the disability at 60 per cent tracheostomy (vocal cord) injury. Further, the doctors examined have not treated the petitioner at the time of the accident. Even as per medical guidelines even in case of multiple injuries the disability will not exceed 100 per cent only when he becomes negative. (4) I submit further that the respondent No. 2 insurance company had examined Dr. Ganapathy, Neuro Surgeon of Apollo Hospital, who treated the petitioner at the time of accident. He assessed the disability at 50 per cent for the eye injury and 10 per cent for the head injury at the time of discharge. (5) I submit that since the disability assessed by the ENT Dr. Adalarasu at 60 per cent is very high, it is just and necessary to refer the petitioner to the Medical Board at Royapettah Hospital to assess the present disability due to the injury sustained. 2. The affidavit in support of the application discloses that the disability assessed by ENT Dr. Adalarasu at 60 per cent is very high and that is why the claimant has to be referred to the Medical Board. 3. The averments made in the affidavit in my considered view are not sufficient to refer the claimant to the Medical Board. 2. The affidavit in support of the application discloses that the disability assessed by ENT Dr. Adalarasu at 60 per cent is very high and that is why the claimant has to be referred to the Medical Board. 3. The averments made in the affidavit in my considered view are not sufficient to refer the claimant to the Medical Board. When the petitioner has cross-examined the three doctors, who have been examined on the side of the claimant and when the petitioner itself has examined a doctor to prove the disability of the claimant, the question of referring the claimant to the Medical Board does not arise, especially on the averments made in the affidavit of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , Even in the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court it was held that if the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, he has to constitute a Medical Board and refer the claimant to the Medical Board to assess the disability. That does not mean that in each and every case the injured shall be referred to the Medical Board. In the case on hand, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant need not be sent to the Medical Board giving cogent reasons. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the said order. In fine, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.