HEART ATTACK AS ACCIDENT:
“The word `accident’ is not a technical legal term with a clearly defined meaning. Speaking generally, but with reference to legal liabilities, an accident means any unintended and unexpected occurrence which produces hurt or loss. But it is often used to denote any unintended and unexpected loss or hurt apart from its cause; and if the cause is not known the loss or hurt itself would certainly be called an accident. The word `accident’ is also often used to denote both the cause and the effect, no attempt being made to discriminate between them. The great majority of what are called accidents are occasioned by carelessness; but for legal purposes it is often important to distinguish careless from other unintended and unexpected events.”
It is accordingly observed as under:-
“Injury suffered should be a physio-logical injury. Accident, ordinarily, would have to be understood as unforeseen or uncomprehended or could not be foreseen or comprehended.
Employer’s liability to pay compensation
The Employer will be liable to pay compensation for the heart attack of the employees if the following conditions have been satisfied. The condition for this is been laid in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali,
The principles are:
(1)There must be a causal connection between the injury and the accident and the work done in the course of employment.
(2)The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury.
(3)If the evidence brought on records establishes a greater probability which satisfies reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of the personal injury, it would be enough for the workman to succeed, but the same would depend upon the facts of each case.
4) Injury suffered should be a physiological injury. Accident, ordinarily, would have to be understood as unforeseen or uncomprehended or could not be foreseen or comprehended. A finding of fact, thus, has to be arrived at, inter alia, having regard to the nature of the work and the situation in which the deceased was placed.
5) There must be a crucial link between the casual connections of employment with death. Such a link with the evidence cannot be a matter of surmise or conjecture. If a finding is arrived at without pleading or legal evidence the statutory authority will commit a jurisdictional error while exercising jurisdiction.
6) An accident may lead to death but that an accident had taken place must be proved. Only because a death has taken place in course of employment will not amount to accident. In other words, death must arise out of accident. There is no presumption that an accident had occurred. In a case of this nature to prove that accident has taken place, factors which would have to be established, inter alia are:
(A) Stress and strain arising during the course of employment;
(b) Nature of employment; and
(c) Injury aggravated due to stress and strain.
Union of India rep. by Divisional Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada v. S. Mnriyammn.
If an employee dies of heart attack, it will amount to an ‘accident’ and the employer will be liable to pay compensation AIR 1963 Assam 127 Full Bench (Assam Railways and Trading Co. Ltd., Vs Saraswati Devi)
FACTS
Employee died due to heart failure
Issue
Whether the heart attack comes under within the meaning of accident and personal injury as in Sec 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act?
Judgment
The court held that heart attack is an accident and comes under within the meaning of accident and personal injury as in Sec 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act
Analysis
The Court held that when the death was due to heart failure that itself can be described as accidental personal injury that was an event which happened suddenly and in a true sense it is a mishap and is to the deceased by an accident.
Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Gulbarga v. Sangamma.
The strain of the work resulting into heart attack will fasten the liability on employer for paying compensation National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balawwa, (1994) 1 LL) 443: . In this case it was held that death of a workman, due to heart attack at the factory gate, while on way to join duty will amount to an industrial accident and compensation will be payable.
Thengachal Estate v. Reethammal, (1996) 2 LLN 779: (1996) 2 CLR 143: (1996) II LLj 511: .
Death of a workman having chest pain at house and dying during working hours will amount to accident for compensation.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sumantari Bai, (2003) IV Lt.) (Supp) 824 (NOC): .
Facts
Employee died due to heart attack while he was driving the truck.
Issue
Whether the heart attack comes under within the meaning of accident and personal injury as in Sec 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act?
Judgment
The court held that heart attack is an accident and comes under within the meaning of accident and personal injury as in Sec 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act
Analysis
The nature of work involves stress and strain therefor death of a truck driver due to heart attack in the cabin of truck will be deemed an accident for compensation.
“The word `accident’ is not a technical legal term with a clearly defined meaning. Speaking generally, but with reference to legal liabilities, an accident means any unintended and unexpected occurrence which produces hurt or loss. But it is often used to denote any unintended and unexpected loss or hurt apart from its cause; and if the cause is not known the loss or hurt itself would certainly be called an accident. The word `accident’ is also often used to denote both the cause and the effect, no attempt being made to discriminate between them. The great majority of what are called accidents are occasioned by carelessness; but for legal purposes it is often important to distinguish careless from other unintended and unexpected events.”
It is accordingly observed as under:-
“Injury suffered should be a physio-logical injury. Accident, ordinarily, would have to be understood as unforeseen or uncomprehended or could not be foreseen or comprehended.
Employer’s liability to pay compensation
The Employer will be liable to pay compensation for the heart attack of the employees if the following conditions have been satisfied. The condition for this is been laid in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali,
The principles are:
(1)There must be a causal connection between the injury and the accident and the work done in the course of employment.
(2)The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury.
(3)If the evidence brought on records establishes a greater probability which satisfies reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of the personal injury, it would be enough for the workman to succeed, but the same would depend upon the facts of each case.
4) Injury suffered should be a physiological injury. Accident, ordinarily, would have to be understood as unforeseen or uncomprehended or could not be foreseen or comprehended. A finding of fact, thus, has to be arrived at, inter alia, having regard to the nature of the work and the situation in which the deceased was placed.
5) There must be a crucial link between the casual connections of employment with death. Such a link with the evidence cannot be a matter of surmise or conjecture. If a finding is arrived at without pleading or legal evidence the statutory authority will commit a jurisdictional error while exercising jurisdiction.
6) An accident may lead to death but that an accident had taken place must be proved. Only because a death has taken place in course of employment will not amount to accident. In other words, death must arise out of accident. There is no presumption that an accident had occurred. In a case of this nature to prove that accident has taken place, factors which would have to be established, inter alia are:
(A) Stress and strain arising during the course of employment;
(b) Nature of employment; and
(c) Injury aggravated due to stress and strain.
Union of India rep. by Divisional Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada v. S. Mnriyammn.
If an employee dies of heart attack, it will amount to an ‘accident’ and the employer will be liable to pay compensation AIR 1963 Assam 127 Full Bench (Assam Railways and Trading Co. Ltd., Vs Saraswati Devi)
FACTS
Employee died due to heart failure
Issue
Whether the heart attack comes under within the meaning of accident and personal injury as in Sec 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act?
Judgment
The court held that heart attack is an accident and comes under within the meaning of accident and personal injury as in Sec 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act
Analysis
The Court held that when the death was due to heart failure that itself can be described as accidental personal injury that was an event which happened suddenly and in a true sense it is a mishap and is to the deceased by an accident.
Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Gulbarga v. Sangamma.
The strain of the work resulting into heart attack will fasten the liability on employer for paying compensation National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balawwa, (1994) 1 LL) 443: . In this case it was held that death of a workman, due to heart attack at the factory gate, while on way to join duty will amount to an industrial accident and compensation will be payable.
Thengachal Estate v. Reethammal, (1996) 2 LLN 779: (1996) 2 CLR 143: (1996) II LLj 511: .
Death of a workman having chest pain at house and dying during working hours will amount to accident for compensation.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sumantari Bai, (2003) IV Lt.) (Supp) 824 (NOC): .
Facts
Employee died due to heart attack while he was driving the truck.
Issue
Whether the heart attack comes under within the meaning of accident and personal injury as in Sec 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act?
Judgment
The court held that heart attack is an accident and comes under within the meaning of accident and personal injury as in Sec 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act
Analysis
The nature of work involves stress and strain therefor death of a truck driver due to heart attack in the cabin of truck will be deemed an accident for compensation.
United India Insurance Company v. T. Shanmuga Mudaliar.
Facts
Death of a truck driver due to heart attack in the cabin of
Issue
Whether the heart attack comes under within the meaning of accident and personal injury as in Sec 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act?
Judgment
The court held that heart attack is an accident and comes under within the meaning of accident and personal injury as in Sec 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act
Analysis
The nature of work involves stress and strain therefor death of a driver due to heart attack in the cabin of truck will be deemed an accident for compensation. Death of a driver collapsing due to heart attack will be deemed as an accident during the course of employment.
Hindu Inter College, Kandha, Muzaffarnagar v, Prescribed Authority (Minimum Wages Act, 1948).
Heart attack, while on duty, will lie construed as an accident for payment of compensation.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sabitri Devi.
Death of a truck driver due to heart attack, will amount to an accident for payment of compensation
BriJum Mumbai Municipal Corporation v. Dashrathsatyawan Gawade. .
Death due to heart attack cannot by itself be presumed that an accident had occurred.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mat. Param Pal Singh, through his father Sh. Santokh Singh.
Facts
The lorry driver died by developing chest pain while he was driving the lorry.
Issue
Whether it is an accident?
Judgment
The court held that it is an accident and the employer is liable to pay the compensation.
Analysis
The employer is liable to pay the compensation as it has arisen out of and in the course of employment.
Applicabilityof Doctrine of notional extension:
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Susheela,.
The concept of notional extension under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for granting compensation will be applicable when there has been unrebutted evidence to show that the death of the deceased has occurred due to stress and strain resulting in cardiac arrest on his way while he was returning after duty.
Facts
Death of a truck driver due to heart attack in the cabin of
Issue
Whether the heart attack comes under within the meaning of accident and personal injury as in Sec 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act?
Judgment
The court held that heart attack is an accident and comes under within the meaning of accident and personal injury as in Sec 3 of the Employee’s Compensation Act
Analysis
The nature of work involves stress and strain therefor death of a driver due to heart attack in the cabin of truck will be deemed an accident for compensation. Death of a driver collapsing due to heart attack will be deemed as an accident during the course of employment.
Hindu Inter College, Kandha, Muzaffarnagar v, Prescribed Authority (Minimum Wages Act, 1948).
Heart attack, while on duty, will lie construed as an accident for payment of compensation.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sabitri Devi.
Death of a truck driver due to heart attack, will amount to an accident for payment of compensation
BriJum Mumbai Municipal Corporation v. Dashrathsatyawan Gawade. .
Death due to heart attack cannot by itself be presumed that an accident had occurred.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mat. Param Pal Singh, through his father Sh. Santokh Singh.
Facts
The lorry driver died by developing chest pain while he was driving the lorry.
Issue
Whether it is an accident?
Judgment
The court held that it is an accident and the employer is liable to pay the compensation.
Analysis
The employer is liable to pay the compensation as it has arisen out of and in the course of employment.
Applicabilityof Doctrine of notional extension:
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Susheela,.
The concept of notional extension under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for granting compensation will be applicable when there has been unrebutted evidence to show that the death of the deceased has occurred due to stress and strain resulting in cardiac arrest on his way while he was returning after duty.
BURDEN OF PROOF
Burden of proof lies on the claimant.
Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshli v. Prabhakar Maruli Garuali,.
Burden of proof lies on the claimant.
Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshli v. Prabhakar Maruli Garuali,.
In the absence of evidence that the death by way of cardiac arrest has occurred because of stress or strain, no compensation will be granted.
(Mackinnon Machenzie and Co. Private Limited Vs. Ibrahim Mohammed Issak) .
The Apex Court in the case cited above held that that the burden is upon the claimants to establish the existence of the circumstances that the nature of the employment is such and involves stress and strain and the heart attack is caused due to some risk incidental from the duties of the service and the nature of duties contributed to the death and there is thus crucial link between the employment and death and such a link cannot be a matter of surmise or conjecture and no legal fiction can be raised in this regard. The Supreme Court has in the same judgment observed that although the onus of proving that the injury by accident arose out of and in the course of employment rests upon the claimant, these essentials may be inferred when the facts proved justified such inference and the inference is hence legitimate and the nature of evidence to be adduced need not be beyond reasonable doubt, but must be such as would induces a reasonable man to draw such inference.
(Mackinnon Machenzie and Co. Private Limited Vs. Ibrahim Mohammed Issak) .
The Apex Court in the case cited above held that that the burden is upon the claimants to establish the existence of the circumstances that the nature of the employment is such and involves stress and strain and the heart attack is caused due to some risk incidental from the duties of the service and the nature of duties contributed to the death and there is thus crucial link between the employment and death and such a link cannot be a matter of surmise or conjecture and no legal fiction can be raised in this regard. The Supreme Court has in the same judgment observed that although the onus of proving that the injury by accident arose out of and in the course of employment rests upon the claimant, these essentials may be inferred when the facts proved justified such inference and the inference is hence legitimate and the nature of evidence to be adduced need not be beyond reasonable doubt, but must be such as would induces a reasonable man to draw such inference.
‘Out of and in the course of employment’
If the employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated death, or if the death is due not only to disease but also the disease coupled with the employment, then it can be said the death arose out the employment and the employer would be liable.”
Conditions to pay compensation under the act:
• Personal injury must have been caused to employee;
• The injury must have resulted in the employees’ death or permanent or temporary ,total or partial disablement ;
• The injury must have been caused by accident;
• The accident must have arisen out of employment and in the course of employment;
• The formalities prescribed by the act must have been observed for the claim of compensation
• The cause must not fall under any exception to the proviso to section 3(1)
• The accident must have happened in India except in the case of mastership and seamen;
• The person from whom the compensation is claimed must be one of the person of the persons liable to pay compensation under the act;
• The compensation must be calculated in accordance with the provision of the act; and
• The employee must not file a suit for damages against any person in civil court in respect of the same injury.
If the employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated death, or if the death is due not only to disease but also the disease coupled with the employment, then it can be said the death arose out the employment and the employer would be liable.”
Conditions to pay compensation under the act:
• Personal injury must have been caused to employee;
• The injury must have resulted in the employees’ death or permanent or temporary ,total or partial disablement ;
• The injury must have been caused by accident;
• The accident must have arisen out of employment and in the course of employment;
• The formalities prescribed by the act must have been observed for the claim of compensation
• The cause must not fall under any exception to the proviso to section 3(1)
• The accident must have happened in India except in the case of mastership and seamen;
• The person from whom the compensation is claimed must be one of the person of the persons liable to pay compensation under the act;
• The compensation must be calculated in accordance with the provision of the act; and
• The employee must not file a suit for damages against any person in civil court in respect of the same injury.
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balwwa, (1994) 1 LLj 433:.
Facts: Deceased employed for loading and unloading stones from the tractor – While on work had gone to ease him – Suffered heart-attack – Taken to hospital and died there –
Issue: Whether death arose ‘out of and in the course of employment’?
Judgment: He court held that death arouse out of and in the course of employment In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. A. Saroja and others expressed the view that even an ordinary strain in the given circumstances of the case would be enough to cause injury or death and the same has to be held in the course of and out of employment and the claimant is entitled for compensation
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai Vs. Nagaraj and others the death due to heart attack of an employee in a tea estate while carrying head load upon climbing hilly terrain is held to be death arising out of and in the course of employment. It is held that the nature of work itself involved stress and strain and it is contributed to heart attack resulting in death of the employee.
Strain and Stress
Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore, (2006) 5 SCC 513, (2006) 3 KLT 426: (2006) 3 LLN 8110 2006 LLR 890 (SC).
Facts
The employee duty is to switch on and off the machines. He died due to heart failure.
Issue
Whether the employer is liable to pay compensation ?
Judgment
The court held that employer is not liable to pay compensation.
Analysis
The employer is not liable to pay compensation because the nature of job doesn’t involve stress and strain and injury has not been aggravated due to the nature of the employment.
Kalyani P. v. Divisional Manager, Southern Railway (Personal Branch), Divisional Officer, Madras, 2004 LLR 207: .
Facts
The workman was called for night duty he had also worked during the day, had collapse about an hour after joining the duty.
Issue
Whether the work strain has contributed to or accelerated the accident?
Judgment
Yes. It has arisen out of strain of the work.
Analysis
When the workman was called for night duty even though he had worked during the day, had collapse about an hour after joining the duty will raise a presumption that the work strain has contributed to or accelerated the accident i.e. death due to heart attack. Similar viea was held in Chief General Manager, Thermal Power Station, NLC Ltd. Vs. G.Dhanam and others and National Insurance Company Ltd., Bhavani Vs. A.Saroja and other .
Nexus between employment and accident
There is must be a causal connection between the employment and accident to claim compensation.
Leela Deai v. Ram Lll Rahu.
For payment of compensation under the Act, there should be casual connection between the employment and cause of death.
B.CCL. v. Shri Smrit Mahato, In order to be entitled for compensation, an employee must establish that the accident has causal connection with the employment. Tuticorin Stevedores Association, Tuticorin v. Deputy Commissioner for Labor (Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation), Tirunelveli, .
There must be direct connection between accident and death for claiming compensation.
National Insurance Company … vs Smt.Paramjit Kaur And Others on there, thus, must be shown to be a casual connection between the injury and accident and the work done in the course of employment. There would be no requirement of showing that there was a direct connection between the cause of death and nature of duties. Even a casual connection between the two will suffice and the claim of the compensation on such count will be maintainable.
Pre –existing heart problems of the employee
Bai Shakri vs New Manekchowk Mills Company Ltd.
Facts
While he was sitting in the grey folding department, where he had gone to see a friend, he got a serious heart attack and was removed from the mills to the Civil Hospital. He remained as an indoor patient in the Civil Hospital for about a month and a half and was then discharged. He died on 16 March 1956.
Issue
Whether the injury is been aggravated by the strain of the work ?
Judgment: The court held that the injury is not been aggravated by the strain of work as accident took place while he was visiting his friend and the claimant have failed to prove the accident aroused due to the strain and stress of the work.
Principles
The principles which emerge from these decisions are :
(1) There must be a causal connection between the injury and the accident and the accident and the work done in the course of employment.
(2) The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury.
(3) It is not necessary that the workman must be actually working at the time of his death or that death must occur while he is working or had just ceased work.
(4) Where the evidence is balanced, if the evidence shows a greater probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of the personal injury, it would be enough for the workman to succeed.
In Management OF Vanniar Estate Vs. Kamatchi & Commissioner For Workman’s Compensation , wherein it is held that a pre-existing heart condition which was aggravated by the strain of the work of the deceased resulting in his death would constitute accidental injury within the meaning of the Act.
In Management Of Deveon Estate, Nilgiris Vs. Nabeesa it is held that a workman while going to field from the muster suffered from acute chest pain and died instantaneously due to pre-existing heart condition, which was aggravated by the strain of work, it was held that the death arose out of and in the course of employment.
It has also been held in Madras State Electricity Board Vs. Ambazhtingal Ithachutti Umma that the principle in heart cases seems to be that, if death or disability is due to heart attack which resulted from the exertion of the employee in the performance of the duties of his employment, compensation should be awarded. (iv) A Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the decision of Bhaghwanji Murubhai Sodha And Others Vs. Hindustan Tiles And Cement Industries , Jagmoagar dealing with heart cases has laid down the following principle:
The sudden collapse of the worker after he suffered this injury resulting in his chest pain was clearly the result of his work connected with the work he was doing. In fact, this was a clear case where the old age got coupled with the employment and, therefore, the employment was a contributory cause and the causal connection being established, the conclusion was inescapable that the accident arose out of and during the course of the employment. Unless there were circumstances to the contrary, it would be justifiable to resume that the workman was discharging and had discharged the work that was usually assigned to him at the particular time, and it would also be natural to presume that if such work involved some strain, the disease, infirmity or old age, that was existing was likely to contribute to or accelerate the death. In such cases, the pre-existing disease, infirmity or old age is the pre-disposing factor which will supply the necessary causal link to make this a work connected injury, if death takes place while the workman is engaged in his normal work
Facts: Deceased employed for loading and unloading stones from the tractor – While on work had gone to ease him – Suffered heart-attack – Taken to hospital and died there –
Issue: Whether death arose ‘out of and in the course of employment’?
Judgment: He court held that death arouse out of and in the course of employment In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. A. Saroja and others expressed the view that even an ordinary strain in the given circumstances of the case would be enough to cause injury or death and the same has to be held in the course of and out of employment and the claimant is entitled for compensation
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai Vs. Nagaraj and others the death due to heart attack of an employee in a tea estate while carrying head load upon climbing hilly terrain is held to be death arising out of and in the course of employment. It is held that the nature of work itself involved stress and strain and it is contributed to heart attack resulting in death of the employee.
Strain and Stress
Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore, (2006) 5 SCC 513, (2006) 3 KLT 426: (2006) 3 LLN 8110 2006 LLR 890 (SC).
Facts
The employee duty is to switch on and off the machines. He died due to heart failure.
Issue
Whether the employer is liable to pay compensation ?
Judgment
The court held that employer is not liable to pay compensation.
Analysis
The employer is not liable to pay compensation because the nature of job doesn’t involve stress and strain and injury has not been aggravated due to the nature of the employment.
Kalyani P. v. Divisional Manager, Southern Railway (Personal Branch), Divisional Officer, Madras, 2004 LLR 207: .
Facts
The workman was called for night duty he had also worked during the day, had collapse about an hour after joining the duty.
Issue
Whether the work strain has contributed to or accelerated the accident?
Judgment
Yes. It has arisen out of strain of the work.
Analysis
When the workman was called for night duty even though he had worked during the day, had collapse about an hour after joining the duty will raise a presumption that the work strain has contributed to or accelerated the accident i.e. death due to heart attack. Similar viea was held in Chief General Manager, Thermal Power Station, NLC Ltd. Vs. G.Dhanam and others and National Insurance Company Ltd., Bhavani Vs. A.Saroja and other .
Nexus between employment and accident
There is must be a causal connection between the employment and accident to claim compensation.
Leela Deai v. Ram Lll Rahu.
For payment of compensation under the Act, there should be casual connection between the employment and cause of death.
B.CCL. v. Shri Smrit Mahato, In order to be entitled for compensation, an employee must establish that the accident has causal connection with the employment. Tuticorin Stevedores Association, Tuticorin v. Deputy Commissioner for Labor (Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation), Tirunelveli, .
There must be direct connection between accident and death for claiming compensation.
National Insurance Company … vs Smt.Paramjit Kaur And Others on there, thus, must be shown to be a casual connection between the injury and accident and the work done in the course of employment. There would be no requirement of showing that there was a direct connection between the cause of death and nature of duties. Even a casual connection between the two will suffice and the claim of the compensation on such count will be maintainable.
Pre –existing heart problems of the employee
Bai Shakri vs New Manekchowk Mills Company Ltd.
Facts
While he was sitting in the grey folding department, where he had gone to see a friend, he got a serious heart attack and was removed from the mills to the Civil Hospital. He remained as an indoor patient in the Civil Hospital for about a month and a half and was then discharged. He died on 16 March 1956.
Issue
Whether the injury is been aggravated by the strain of the work ?
Judgment: The court held that the injury is not been aggravated by the strain of work as accident took place while he was visiting his friend and the claimant have failed to prove the accident aroused due to the strain and stress of the work.
Principles
The principles which emerge from these decisions are :
(1) There must be a causal connection between the injury and the accident and the accident and the work done in the course of employment.
(2) The onus is upon the applicant to show that it was the work and the resulting strain which contributed to or aggravated the injury.
(3) It is not necessary that the workman must be actually working at the time of his death or that death must occur while he is working or had just ceased work.
(4) Where the evidence is balanced, if the evidence shows a greater probability which satisfies a reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of the personal injury, it would be enough for the workman to succeed.
In Management OF Vanniar Estate Vs. Kamatchi & Commissioner For Workman’s Compensation , wherein it is held that a pre-existing heart condition which was aggravated by the strain of the work of the deceased resulting in his death would constitute accidental injury within the meaning of the Act.
In Management Of Deveon Estate, Nilgiris Vs. Nabeesa it is held that a workman while going to field from the muster suffered from acute chest pain and died instantaneously due to pre-existing heart condition, which was aggravated by the strain of work, it was held that the death arose out of and in the course of employment.
It has also been held in Madras State Electricity Board Vs. Ambazhtingal Ithachutti Umma that the principle in heart cases seems to be that, if death or disability is due to heart attack which resulted from the exertion of the employee in the performance of the duties of his employment, compensation should be awarded. (iv) A Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the decision of Bhaghwanji Murubhai Sodha And Others Vs. Hindustan Tiles And Cement Industries , Jagmoagar dealing with heart cases has laid down the following principle:
The sudden collapse of the worker after he suffered this injury resulting in his chest pain was clearly the result of his work connected with the work he was doing. In fact, this was a clear case where the old age got coupled with the employment and, therefore, the employment was a contributory cause and the causal connection being established, the conclusion was inescapable that the accident arose out of and during the course of the employment. Unless there were circumstances to the contrary, it would be justifiable to resume that the workman was discharging and had discharged the work that was usually assigned to him at the particular time, and it would also be natural to presume that if such work involved some strain, the disease, infirmity or old age, that was existing was likely to contribute to or accelerate the death. In such cases, the pre-existing disease, infirmity or old age is the pre-disposing factor which will supply the necessary causal link to make this a work connected injury, if death takes place while the workman is engaged in his normal work
EMPLOYER NOT LIABLE:
• Nature of job is that there was no scope for any stress or strain.
• In the absence of evidence that the death by way of cardiac arrest has occurred because of stress or strain
• In the absence of establishing the nexus between the employment and the death due to heart attack
• If claimant has unable to prove injury aggravated due to stress and strain.
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Srinivasa,
In the absence of nexus between the employment and the death due to heart attack, no compensation will be payable
Thati Ranga Roa v Varalakshmi
Facts
The employee died due to heart failure. His legal heir claiming the compensation.
Issue
Whether the legal heirs are entitled to claim compensation?
Judgment
The court denied the compensation to the legal heir of the deceased.
Analysis
The court denied the compensation to the legal heir of the deceased as the claimant failed to prove that the accident has arisen out of the employment.
CONCLUSION
There is no direct statutory provision which deals about payment of compensation for employees who suffer from heart attack under the workmen compensation act or any other labour legislation in India. From the above analysis of various cases law it can be understood that heart attack is an accident. Employer is liable to pay compensation under workmen compensation act, if applicant proves that is death has occurred due to heart attack which occurred due to the stress and strain arising out of employment or the injury is aggravated due to stress and strain arising out of employment. Nexus between the act and employment should be established to claim compensation from the employer.
SUGGESTIONS
• Burden of proof lie’s on the claimant .If there is no evidence to prove that stress and strain which have aggravated to death, claimant is not entitled to compensation. Many workers are not aware of their rights. Hence there must be programme to promote the awareness of their rights.
• Even if they are aware of their rights they don’t have proper guidance to follow the procedure to claim compensation. Workshop should be conducted to create awareness about their right. Legal aid and other workshop must guide them technically, to follow procedures to claim compensation.
• Nature of job is that there was no scope for any stress or strain.
• In the absence of evidence that the death by way of cardiac arrest has occurred because of stress or strain
• In the absence of establishing the nexus between the employment and the death due to heart attack
• If claimant has unable to prove injury aggravated due to stress and strain.
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Srinivasa,
In the absence of nexus between the employment and the death due to heart attack, no compensation will be payable
Thati Ranga Roa v Varalakshmi
Facts
The employee died due to heart failure. His legal heir claiming the compensation.
Issue
Whether the legal heirs are entitled to claim compensation?
Judgment
The court denied the compensation to the legal heir of the deceased.
Analysis
The court denied the compensation to the legal heir of the deceased as the claimant failed to prove that the accident has arisen out of the employment.
CONCLUSION
There is no direct statutory provision which deals about payment of compensation for employees who suffer from heart attack under the workmen compensation act or any other labour legislation in India. From the above analysis of various cases law it can be understood that heart attack is an accident. Employer is liable to pay compensation under workmen compensation act, if applicant proves that is death has occurred due to heart attack which occurred due to the stress and strain arising out of employment or the injury is aggravated due to stress and strain arising out of employment. Nexus between the act and employment should be established to claim compensation from the employer.
SUGGESTIONS
• Burden of proof lie’s on the claimant .If there is no evidence to prove that stress and strain which have aggravated to death, claimant is not entitled to compensation. Many workers are not aware of their rights. Hence there must be programme to promote the awareness of their rights.
• Even if they are aware of their rights they don’t have proper guidance to follow the procedure to claim compensation. Workshop should be conducted to create awareness about their right. Legal aid and other workshop must guide them technically, to follow procedures to claim compensation.
Thus employee can claim compensation for heart attack if it arises out of and in the course of employment. If awareness of this act among working class is promoted fruits of this beneficial legislation can be utilized in an efficient manner.
No comments:
Post a Comment