S.R.Singh, J. - (1.) This appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated September 29, 1984 of the Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur and raises substantial question as to scope and ambit of the appellate power of the Employees Insurance Court under Section 54-A(2)(i) of the Act.
(2.) Brief facts necessary to highlight the question involved in this appeal may be stated as thus: the appellant Ram Awadh, who is admittedly an insured person for the purpose of the Act, on August 19, 1982 sustained employment injury in his right eye which according to him resulted into permanent partial loss of vision of the injured eye to the extent of 6/24 as reported by Eye Specialist and accordingly he claimed 30% Permanent disablement benefit under the Act. The Medical Board in its decision dated February 28, 1983 found "no functional loss" in the injured eye and further "malingering test positive" and accordingly it held that the appellant was not entitled to any appreciable disablement benefit. Aggrieved against the decision of the Medical Board, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Medical Appellate Tribunal under Section 54-A(2) of the Act. The Medical Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated July 28, 1983 allowed the appeal holding that the appellant suffered permanent disability and was accordingly entitled to be awarded 30% loss of earning capacity. The Medical Appellate Tribunal in support of its conclusion aforesaid, placed reliance on the opinion of Dr. B.M.D. Verma, Medical Expert-assessor, contained in his report dated February 18, 1983 which report was found consistent with the report of the Eye-Specialist of E.S.I. Hospital, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur. The Medical Appellate Tribunal gave adequate valid reasons for accepting the report submitted by Doctor in preference to the opinion of the Medical Board in as much as the decision of the Medical Board was not found based on any suitable examination or test. The Corporation went up in appeal before the E.S.I. Court against the decision taken by the Medical Appellate Tribunal. The E.S.I. Court being of the view that "court cannot assume the role of medical expert especially when the opinions of the medical experts are contradictory on the same point" remanded the matter to the Medical Board with a directive to get the injured eye of the insured person re-examined by medical experts or by Joint Director, so that the assessment of loss of earning capacity of the insured person be awarded accordingly.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that if the Medical Appellate Tribunal has, on proper self direction to the relevant factors, arrived at a conclusion as to the extent of disablement suffered by an insured person due to an employment injury then such conclusions arrived at by the Medical Appellate Tribunal are not liable to be interfered with by the E.S.I. Court. It is true that insured person or Corporation, as the case may be, has a right to file appeal against the decision of the Medical Board to the Medical Appellate Tribunal with a further right to appeal to the Employees Insurance Court, but the E.S.I. Court while exercising the appellate powers under Section 54-A(2)(i) has to attach due value to the conclusions arrived at by the Medical Appellate Tribunal on the question of extent of disability. The E.S.I. Court should normally not interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the Medical Appellate Tribunal except where it finds that the conclusions are based on no valid material or they are perverse or otherwise vitiated by reason of any mistake of law or of fact. In the present case no such eventuality exists and the E.S.I. Court, in my opinion had, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no jurisdiction to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Medical Appellate Tribunal.;