Punjab

Sangrur

CC/487/2016

Alka Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Employee State Insurance Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

Rohit Jain

03 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  487

                                                Instituted on:    11.82.2016

                                                Decided on:       03.01.2017

 

1.Alka Rani widow of late Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Bal Krishan, 2. Chahat daughter of late Shri Raj Kumar s/o Sh. Bal Krishan, 3. Karan minor son of late Shri Raj Kumar son of Shri Bal Krishan, minor under the guardianship of his mother Alka Rani, all residents of Inside Delhi Gate, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainants

                                        Versus

1.     Employees State Insurance Corporation through its Manager, Karbala Road, Near Dr. Zakhir Hussain Stadium, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

2.     Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh through its Deputy/Regional Director.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For OPS no.1&2       :       Shri S.M.Goyal, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Alka Rani and others,  complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the husband of the complainant number 1 and father of the complainants number 2 and 3 (referred to as deceased in short) was an employee of M/s. Prince Industries, Industrial Estate, Malerkotla and as such was covered/insured under ESI no. 1207228597 and has been paying the necessary contribution to the OPs, as such is a consumer of the OPs. 

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that when the deceased was working in the premises of the employer of the deceased on 17.9.2015 at about 05.20 PM, he felt severe chest pain and fell on the floor from his chair and as such was immediately taken to Civil Hospital, Malerkotla, where doctors declared him brought dead and cause of death was declared as cardiac arrest.  It is further averred that thereafter the employer i.e. factory owner submitted accident report with the OPs along with his statement and an officer of the OPs also recorded statement of witnesses namely Mohammad Akhtar and Neeru Uppal.  Further case of the complainant is that the OPs demanded post-mortem report of the deceased.  But the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 2 vide letter dated 25.2.2016 intimated the OP number 1 that the case is not covered under employment injury and after that the OP number 1 intimated the complainants accordingly.   It is further averred that the complainant number 1 further intimated the OPs to consider the case of the deceased as died during the employment, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to consider the death case of Shri Raj Kumar as an employment injury and give benefits i.e. pension etc. to the complainant and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief. On merits,  it is admitted that the deceased was an employee of M/s. Prince Industries, Malerkotla and was covered under the ESI scheme as stated above.  It is further admitted that the on 17.9.2015, the deceased was taken to Civil Hospital, Malerkotla where doctors declared him brought dead, but it is denied that the cause of death was declared as ‘cardiac arrest’. It is denied that the information about the same was given to the officers of the OPs immediately. It is further stated that the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Malerkotla in his certificate had indicated that probable cause of death according to the history and examination was cardiac arrest. It is further stated that the accident report was submitted with the OPs on 4.12.2015 i.e. 78 days after the death.  It is stated that the Ops have rightly denied the claim vide letter dated 25.2.2016 as it was not covered under the employment injury.  The Ops have mentioned that cardiac arrest and heart attack are different things.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of Rajnish Uppal, Ex.C-2 affidavit of complainant, Ex.C-3 copy of accident report, Ex.C-4 copy of accident report from employer, Ex.C-5 copy of statement of Rajneesh Uppal, Ex.C-6 copy of statement of Mohd. Avtar, Ex.C-7 copy of statement of Neeru Uppal, Ex.C-8 copy of certificate issued by ESI, Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-15 copies of letters, Ex.C-16 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-17 copy of EPF form, Ex.C-18 copy of EPF form, Ex.C-19 copy of bank passbook, Ex.C-20 copy of public grievance, Ex.C-21 copy of letter, Ex.C-22 copy of death certificate and Ex.C-23 to Ex.C-31 copies of other pension documents of others and closed evidence. The learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2  has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the deceased was an employee of M/s. Prince Industries, Malerkotla and as such was also having an ESI account with the Ops being an employee covered under the ESI Scheme.  It is further an admitted fact that the deceased Raj Kumar died on 17.09.2015 at about 5.20 PM during the course of employment due to sudden severe chest pain and fell on floor from his chair and was immediately taken to Civil Hospital, Malerkotla, where doctors declared him brought dead and cause of death was declared as ‘cardiac arrest’ and in this respect a certificate was also issued, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-8. It is further on record that thereafter the complainant submitted his claim with the OPs for grant of pension as the deceased employee died an accidental death during his employment. But, the Ops have rejected the pension claim of the complainants on the ground that the deceased did not die an accidental death. Now, the question which arises for determination is only whether the deceased died an accidental death or not. To this, our answer is that the cause of death is an accidental death.

 

7.             Ex.C-4 is the copy of accident report from the employer, a bare perusal of it clearly shows that the deceased died on 17.09.2015 while he was sitting on the chair in his office and doing his work suddenly he felt severe chest pain and fell down on the floor of office and he was immediately taken to hospital where he was declared dead due to heart attack. Further Ex.C-5 is the copy of statement of Shri Rajneesh Uppal wherein it is clearly stated that the deceased died due to the heart failure. Similarly, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 are the statements of Mohammad Akhatar and  Smt. Neeru Uppal.  The complainants have also produced on record the certificate Ex.C-8 which has been issued by the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Malerkotla, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the cause of death of the deceased was cardiac arrest. Ex.C-22 is the copy of death certificate of Shri Raj Kumar, deceased.  In the circumstances, since it is clearly proved on record that the deceased Shri Raj Kumar died during the employment when he was doing his office work and suddenly fell on the floor due to cardiac arrest and when he was taken to Civil Hospital, Malerkotla he was declared to be brought dead. As such, it is clear that the deceased did not die a natural death. Further L.4.64 i.e. Heart failure, strok etc. at work provides that when an employee while at work may suffer a heart attack or a stroke and when it happens, the onset is often so sudden that such an attach, has long been recognised in case law on the subject as an ‘accident’.  Obviously, such an attack comes during work and thus it occurs during the course of employment and all that remains to be established is that it arose ‘out of employment’. In such cases the presumption always is that the stress and strain of the work done by the sufferer/victim may have brought physiological changes in him and this precipitated a heart attack or a stroke.  Section 51 A provides that if the accident has happened in the course of employment and if there is no evidence to the contrary, it will be sufficient to hold that the accident also arose out of employment….”.   In the present case, the Ops have not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show the deceased died otherwise and not during the course of employment. Further we may mention that as per the medical ideology, cardiac arrest is a sudden stop in effective blood flow due to the failure of the heart to contract effectively. Its symptoms include loss of consciousness and abnormal or absent breathing. Some people may have chest pain, shortness of breath or nausea before this occurs. If not treated within minutes, death usually occurs.   As such, we are of the considered opinion that the deceased Raj Kumar died an accidental death due to cardiac arrest/heart attack. Since it is proved on record that the cause of death of the deceased was an accidental one during the course of his employment, but the Ops failed to grant the pension to the family members of the deceased as per the rules, which is a clear cut case of deficiency in service.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to consider the case of Shri Raj Kumar as an accidental death during the course of employment and further to give benefits i.e. pension etc..  We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                January 3, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                           

                                                         

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                  Member