Employee's Right To Seek Treatment From Hospital Of Choice Cannot Be Curtailed By Circulars Issued By Employer: Kerela High Court

Background Facts

P.T. Rajeevan (Respondent) was working as a head load worker in the Food Corporation of India (Appellant) when he suffered an injury in the course of employment due to an accident in 2014. He underwent treatment for disc prolapse with neurological claudication due to the accident and incurred medical bills of Rs. 35,000.

The Respondent filed an application before Employees' Compensation Commissioner (ECC) and claimed a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation from the Respondent, but the ECC did not accept the contention that the Respondent received a monthly wage of Rs. 29,500 and thus fixed the compensation of the Respondent on the basis that he withdrew a monthly wage of Rs. 20,000. Based on the above monthly wage and the medical bill, the ECC fixed the compensation of the Respondent to be Rs. 50,000 with simple interest of 12% from the date of accident along with Rs. 35, 000 paid for medical expenses.

Thus, cross appeals were filed against the order of the ECC wherein the Appellant challenged the award of Rs. 35,000 medical bills on the ground that the Respondent did not undergo treatment at one of the hospitals empanelled with the Food Corporation of India as provided under Circular No. 10/2005 issued by Deputy General Manager of the Appellant. The Respondent on the other hand appealed against the order of the ECC on the ground that the ECC should have calculated his compensation based on a monthly wage of Rs. 29,500 instead of Rs. 20,000

Findings of the Court

The court observed that the contention that the medical bills of the Respondent cannot be honoured since Respondent had not gone to an hospital empanelled with the Appellant was unacceptable. The court observed that the ECC had rightly held that no circular issued by the employer could override the mandate of Section 4(2A) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (ECA, 1923), under which an employee shall be reimbursed the actual medical expenditure incurred by him for treatment of injuries caused during the course of employment.

The court further observed since the ECA, 1923 is a social welfare legislation, its purpose cannot be defeated by circulars or internal orders passed by officers of the Appellant. The court further observed that there was no rationale to say that when an employee suffers an injury in the course of employment, they need to prefer the hospital on the panel of the Appellant instead of the hospital from which they could get the best medical care. The court observed that:

The right of the employee to seek treatment from the hospital of his choice cannot be curtailed by the circulars issued by the officers of the appellant

The court further fixed the salary of the Respondent to be Rs. 30,165 and fixed the compensation to be a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,00,000.

With the aforesaid observations, the court dismissed the appeal of the Appellant and allowed the cross appeal of the Respondent.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 286

Case No.- MFA (ECC) NO.52 OF 2018

Case Name- Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan

Counsel for Petitioners- ADV SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.

Counsel for Respondents- ADV M.R.JAYALATHA

Click Here To Read/Download Order