Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Anand Prabhu Suryawanshi And Anr on 27 August, 2018

The United India Insurance Company ... vs Venugopal

16. I therefore, conclude that wherever the request made by the Insurance Company or an employer for reference to the medical board, the Commissioner, Employees Compensation shall refer the claimant to the medical board, if the injuries are not covered by the schedule to the enactment and the injuries are of such nature that there will be an element of guess work in deciding the extent of permanent disability caused by such injuries. The directions issued by the Division Benches of this Court in Prabhu's case reported in 2016 (1) TNMAC 609 and 2017 (1) TNMAC 106 would apply to cases arising under the Employees' Compensation Act also.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

The Manager vs Moorthy on 14 July, 2023

21. The Division Bench of this Court in The Branch Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu and others, 2016 (1) TN MAC 609 (DB) has expressed a word of caution that only in exceptional cases, such witnesses can be summoned. “Certificate of Disability” issued by the Medical Board although not in the Standard format prescribed by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, it contains all the details that are required as prescribed in the format of the certificate and the format of the Certificate is not determinative of the substance of Disability. 13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

The Divisional Manager vs Palani ... 1St on 17 March, 2020

and C.M.P.(MD).No.1981 of 2020 17.03.2020 8/9 http://www.judis.nic.in CMA(MD)No.114 of 2020 CMA(MD)No.114 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD).No.1981 of 2020 P.VELMURUGAN,J The Registry is directed to call for explanation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Court, Maudrai, for not following the direction given by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of THE BRANCH MANAGER, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., V. PRABHU reported in 2016(1) TN MAC 609 and place it before this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P Velmurugan - Full Document

Rajangam vs Vijayakumar on 19 February, 2025

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in 2016 (1) TN MAC 609 (The Branch Manager, TATA AIG 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:02:11 pm ) C.R.P(MD)No.416 of 2025 General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Prabhu & Another) and 2011 ACJ 175 (National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. R.Sivakumar & Others) and had contended that the claimants are in the in the habit of producing stock witnesses from the doctors and therefore, in order to eradicate the same, the Hon'ble Division Benches have directed the concerned tribunals to mandatorily send the claimants for appearing before the medical board attached to the Government hospitals, so that the disability certificate could be relied upon by the Courts. According to them, the disability certificate issued by the medical boards would be more valuable and therefore, the request of the claimant to examine an Orthopaedic Surgeon cannot be accepted.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R Vijayakumar - Full Document

M.Karthik vs P.V.Saranraj on 24 February, 2025

In the Branch Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Prabhu and others reported in 2017 (1) TN MAC 106 (DB), while considering the question, whether the evidence of Doctor 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 11:39:36 am ) CMA.No.3069 of 2021 examined by the claimant can be taken into consideration in the absence of disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, it is observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G.Chitra Gunasekaran vs V.Natarajan (Died) on 22 June, 2023

10. Guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Prabhu case referred to supra are very clear that in exceptional cases, the Experts can be cross-examined. Although the Division Bench has given above guidelines, the guidelines have to be read in conjunction with substantial rights of the litigant under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Medical Expert, in certain cases, is to be construed as a witness in terms of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document
1   2 Next