Skip to main content

Employees State Insurance Scheme claim valid in natural death at workplace: HC

In a judgment that will impact lakhs of people registered under the Employees State Insurance Scheme (ESIS), the Bombay high court has ruled that a dependent of an employee who dies a natural death at the workplace is eligible for compensation.

Terming death due to a heart attack at work as "an employment injury'', the high court has directed the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to pay a widow monetary benefits that she is eligible to under the scheme within four weeks.

On September 5, 2013, a division bench of Justice V M Kanade and Justice K R Sriram allowed a petition by the widow, Bhagyashree Mahadik, challenging rejection of her claim. Her husband, Bharguram (50), died of a heart attack while at work on March 27, 2012. He was employed with Dhanwantari Engineers as a fitter on a salary and enrolled under ESIS by his employer.

ESIC rejected Bhagyashree's claim saying her husband had died of a heart attack, which cannot be termed as employment injury. It also produced a certificate by a senior state medical commissioner which stated that Bharguram died a natural death and that there was no involvement of stress or strain at work. The judges, though, called this "a cryptic opinion".

The judges said it was an "unfortunate case of a widow having to knock the doors of the high court to recover an insurance claim'' from ESIC. They relied on a Punjab and Haryana high court judgment on the presumption of death as an accident in the absence of evidence to the contrary. They also cited a Madras High Court judgment, which ruled that the objective of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, is to provide certain benefits to employees or dependents in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury. They, therefore, concluded that Mahadik's "death happened only during course of employment". The bench set aside ESIC's communication rejecting the widow's claim and directed it to pay her eligible benefits in four weeks.

Article referred: http://m.timesofindia.com/city/mumbai/Employees-State-Insurance-Scheme-claim-valid-in-natural-death-at-workplace-HC/articleshow/22380042.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...