The Bombay High Court on February 25, 2026, ruled in favour of an employee who suffered an accident at the worksite but was denied compensation. The high court held that the fact the doctor who issued the medical certificate for the injured employee did not treat his injuries and only testified after one year is not sufficient grounds to dismiss or reject the entire workmen’s compensation claim of the employee.
This judgement came against the backdrop of a case involving the rejection of the compensation claim of 27-year-old Mr Majhi from Budel, Odisha, who suffered a workplace accident at a site in Thane, Maharashtra, while working for a company based in Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai.
As per his submission to the high court, the workplace accident happened in 2010 when he fell and sustained back injuries. For treatment, he was in hospitalised in the Lok Hospital, Thane, from March 22, 2010, to March 29, 2010. following his discharge, he filed an application to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.
In his application, Mr Majhi sought compensation of Rs 5,95,584 from both his employer and the insurance company, jointly and severally. The commissioner documented the evidence provided by his employer and heard all the parties involved before dismissing Mr Majhi’s application on the sole ground that the disability certificate was issued by a doctor who did not treat him, despite the fact that the said doctor testified in the witness box.
Mr Majhi, feeling aggrieved by the denial of compensation, filed an appeal in the Bombay High Court, challenging the commissioner’s order. Advocate Varsha Nichani represented Majhi before the high court. On February 25, 2026, he won the case in high court.
Bombay High Court analysis and discussion
The Bombay High Court gave this judgement (2026:BHC-AS:9667) on February 25, 2026.
Commissioner made error in rejecting employee accident compensation claim
The Bombay High Court said that the commissioner was unjustified in answering the issues against the applicant (Mr Majhi), which are unrelated to the disability certificate issued by the doctor.
For example, whether an employer-employee relationship has been established or whether the accident occurred in the course of employment, etc., are issues which ought to have been decided independently, and the same does not have any relation whatsoever with respect to the disability certificate for the purpose of calculating compensation.
However, since all the issues are decided against the applicant solely on the ground of the disability certificate, for the reasons stated hereinafter, the said reasoning is erroneous.
A qualified medical practitioner who has not treated the injured can always testify based on the medical reports
The Bombay High Court said that Section 4(1)(c)(ii) and Explanation-II thereto of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, provides for a disability certificate to be issued by a “qualified medical practitioner” for ascertaining loss of earning capacity in relation to injuries specified in the Schedule.
Section 2(1)(i) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, defines “qualified medical practitioner” to mean any person registered under any Central Act, Provincial Act or an Act of the Legislature of a State providing for the maintenance of a register of medical practitioners, or, in any area where no such last-mentioned Act is in force, any person declared by the state government, by notification in the official gazette, to be a qualified medical practitioner for the purposes of this Act.
The Bombay High Court said that they have not been shown any provision in the Act, nor has any provision been referred to in the judgement which states that the disability certificate has to be issued only by the doctor who attended to the injured.
The Bombay High Court said: “There is no dispute that the doctor who issued the disability certificate in the present case is a qualified medical practitioner. The object of obtaining a medical disability certificate from a medical expert is to arrive at the percentage of disability by taking the help of an expert in the field.”
Therefore, the Bombay High Court said that in the absence of any specific provision in the Act requiring disability certificates to be issued only by the doctor who has treated the injured, the reasoning of the commissioner to reject Majhi’s application is not correct.
The Bombay High Court said: “A qualified medical practitioner who has not treated the injured can always give evidence on the basis of the medical reports of the injured and give a certificate on the loss of earning capacity or disability. Such a doctor is always open for cross examination.”
Merely because another doctor issued a medical certificate who did not treat the injured cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim
The Bombay High Court said that merely because the doctor gave a medical certificate who did not attend to the injured but entered the witness box after one year cannot be a ground for discarding and rejecting the whole claim.
The Bombay High Court also said that the commissioner should have considered the evidence of the doctor and could have arrived independently at the percentage of loss of earning capacity.
Therefore, the Bombay High Court said that in their view, the approach of the commissioner in rejecting the application was erroneous, and the commissioner ought to have considered the certificate issued by a doctor who did not treat the injured applicant but was subjected to cross-examination and, after considering the same, should have arrived at the disability percentage.
Judgement:
- Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and is remanded back to the commissioner for the limited purpose of considering the evidence on record and giving a finding on loss of earning capacity.
- Insofar as other issues, like employer-employee relationships, accidents having occurred in the course of employment, etc., are concerned, the same are precluded from being re-examined since the only ground for rejection even on these issues was the certificate having been issued by a non-treating doctor, which, as opined earlier, is erroneous.
- In view of the above, the appeal is allowed by answering the question in favour of the appellant and against the respondents, and the impugned order dated June 19, 2012, is set aside, and the commissioner is directed to consider the evidence on record of the doctor who has issued the certificate and arrive at a disability percentage and calculate the compensation. It is made clear that other than this issue, no other issue will be examined by the commissioner.
- The appellant (Mr Majhi) is to appear before the Commissioner on March 23, 2026, at 11:00 am so that the commissioner can fix the date for hearing. The commissioner is requested to dispose of the application for compensation on or before June 30, 2026. Appeal is allowed in above terms.
Emphasis given on Karnataka High Court’s similar ruling
The Bombay High Court said that Ms Nichani, counsel for the appellant (Mr Majhi), is justified in relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar vs. Kulhari Tours and Travels Prof. Mahipal Singh & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine Kar 808), wherein in paragraph 9, it is specifically observed that there is no provision in the Act mandating assessment of loss of earning capacity only by a doctor who has treated the workman, and there is no bar for consideration of deposition of any qualified medical practitioner who examined the claimant and substantiates the disability.
The Bombay High Court said that in their view, this decision supports the case of the appellant (Mr Majhi).