Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The jurisdiction aspect is elaborately discussed by the District Forum which referred to the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Joshi vs Provident fund Commissioner AIR, 2000 Supreme Court, 331 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in M/s Popular Process Stuid and Another v. ESI Corporation AIR 1970 Bombay, 413. The District Forum considered the decisions and the rigour of Section 75 of ESI Act as under :

iv). The Supreme Court dealt with various aspects of this matter in INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCATION VS. V.P. SHANTHA AND OTHERS. (AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 550). The Supreme court held that service rendered by medical practitioner is not outside section 2(1)(o) of the Act. From the use of the word potential users it cannot, therefore, be inferred that the services rendered by medical practitioners are not contemplated by Parliament to be covered within the expression service as contained in Section 2(1)(o). The Supreme Court further held that the word hires as used in the same sense as avails of. The Supreme Court further held that rendering free of charges services to some patient and services on payment to others fall within the ambit of service under Section 2 (1)(o) of the Act. The Supreme Court further held that there may be case where a person has taken an insurance policy for medi-care whereunder all charges by consultation, diagnosis or medical treatment borne by Insurance Company. In such a case the person receiving the treatment is a beneficiary of the service which has been rendered to him by the medical practitioner, the payment for which would be made by the Insurance Company under the insurance policy. The rendering of service by the medical practitioner cannot be said to be free of charge and would, therefore, fall within the ambit of expression service in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. So also there may be cases where as a part of the conditions of service the employer bears the expense of medical treatment of the employee and his family members dependent on him. The service rendered to him by a medical practitioner would not be free of charge and would therefore, constitute service under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.

The State Government may transfer any matter pending before any Employees' Insurance Court in the State to any such Court in another State with the consent of the State Government of that State.

The Court to which any matter is transferred under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) shall continue the proceedings as if they had been originally instituted in it.

ix).

In order to attract any dispute under the category of any other matter within the meaning of Clause

(g) Sub-section (1) Section 75 of ESI Act, such dispute or matter has to qualify in all the following requirements:

a) that the matter or dispute is such that it is required to be or may be decided by the ESI Court.

b) And such matter shall be decided by the ESI Court subject to the provisions of Sub-section 2 (A) of Section 75.

c) Further, the matter shall be decided by the ESI Court in accordance with the provisions of the ESI Act, 1948.

x).

A perusal of Section 75 and 76 of the ESI Act does not infer that cases of medical negligence or matters of that kind are required to be or may be decided by the ESI Court. There is no provision in the ESI Act to deal with the cases of medical negligence nlike cases relating to questions about contribution by employer and employee, benefits admissible to employee, recovery of dues and so on for the adjudication of which definite provisions are made in the ESI Act.

x) xxx

xi) xxx

xii) xxx

xiii) xxx

xiv) xxx

xv) xxxs   xvi). But the facts of the aforesaid case are different from the facts of the present case. The cases of negligent medical service are not covered under Section 75 of ESI Act. Section 75 of ESI Act deals with only certain types of cases and disputes which can be decided by ESI Court. The cases of medical negligence are outside the purview of the Section 75 of ESI Act. Therefore, we hold that the aforesaid decision has no bearing on the facts of the present case. The complainant has no remedy under the ESI Act. There is no provision in the ESI Act governing a case of culpable medical negligence.