ORDER Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Respondent-J.S.E.B. Petitioner has claimed Rs. 2 lakhs in terms of Clause 3(a)(iii) of Accident Compensation Scheme, 1988 framed by Bihar State Electricity Board in exercise of the powers conferred under section 79 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Petitioners husband died due to A/C Intra Cerebral Haematoma as per certificate of death (Annnexure-9) issued by Kerala Institute of Medical Sciences, Trivandrum. 2. Petitioner by way of supplementary affidavit filed on 25th April, 2017 has tried to make out a case that her husband, Senior Chemist was authorized to inspect the materials at M/s. Indian Rare Earth Ltd., Rare Earths Division, Udyogamandal, Ernakulam, which was under agreement to make certain supplies to Respondent-Electricity Board (Annexure-6) being Memo No. 893 dated 1st August, 2002 issued by Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patratu Thermal Power Station. 3. According to the respondents, the employee was not covered under Accident Compensation Scheme, 1988 in terms of Clause-3 relied upon by the petitioner as the death was not in an accident in discharge of duty assigned to him in an authorized manner, rather death was on account of medical reason with which the employer had no connection. Employer cannot be made to bear any liability for the death of her husband under the provisions of Scheme. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however endeavoured to establish that the word '' accident would also mean death in course of discharge of duty due to any other medical reasons. Reliance has been placed upon the Clause 2(h) of the Scheme 1988 to mean that all other expressions used in this scheme but not specifically defined therein, have the same meaning as are respectively assigned to them in the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. Sub-clause (2) thereof, however, also indicates that in case of doubt relating to interpretation of any word or expression or any of the sections, the decision of the Chairman shall be final. Counsel for the petitioner, however, has not been able to establish from the provisions of Workmens Compensation Act either that scope of scheme and specially Clause 3 thereof covers cases of such employees of respondent-Board, who have died due to other medical reasons. 5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, has not been able to establish from the provisions of Workmens Compensation Act either that scope of scheme and specially Clause 3 thereof covers cases of such employees of respondent-Board, who have died due to other medical reasons. 5. Respondents, in their counter-affidavit, have also taken the plea that the employee was on inspection of materials in the campus of M/s. Indian Rare Earth Division, Udyog Mandal, Kerala and started his journey on 16th September, 2002 and inspected the material on 19th September, 2002. Thereafter, he fell ill on 20th September, 2002 leading to his death on 24th September, 2002 during treatment in Kerala Institute of Medical Sciences, Anamukham, Trivandram. The death certificate also shows death due to A/C Intra Cerebral Haematorma and Morbid condition indicated therein are Hypertension/Diabetes Mellitus. According to the respondents, the Scheme of 1988 applies to employees of the Board, who died in discharge of duty assigned to them in an authorized manner by the competent authority. All the benefits of deceased employee have been granted such as G.P.F., Group Saving Scheme, Gratuity and Family Pension etc. after his death. His son, Pankaj Kumar Sinha has also been appointed on compassionate ground in Boards - service. 6. The claim of the petitioner has thus been refuted. 7. On consideration of the entire gamut of facts noticed herein above, this Court is satisfied that petitioner has failed to make out a case for directing the respondent to grant benefit under the Accident Compensation Scheme, 1988. 8. Accordingly, writ petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.