Amend Act to include internal injuries under ESIC, HC tells Centre

Coming across a challenge by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to the compensation accorded to a workman who had lost a kidney in a work-related accident as it’s not a disability as per the Employees State Insurance (ESI) Act, the Madras High Court has asked the Centre to amend the ESI Act as well as the Employees Compensation Act to include injuries sustained to internal organs like kidneys, lungs, liver as schedule injuries and consequent disablement as schedule disablement.

Justice N Kirubakaran on observing that the ESI Act only talks about external organs said, “From the nature of injury mentioned in the Act, it seems that policy makers during 1948 concentrated only on external organs and the eventuality of injuries to internal organs has not been taken into consideration. Therefore, the Act needs to be amended to incorporate the injuries to internal organs and the consequential disablement so that the workman would be benefited.”

On the same day, he underwent a major operation at JIPMER wherein his left kidney was removed. He later filed a claim petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. But his plea was rejected on the basis that the employment injury is not covered under the Act. Instead, he was asked to approach ESI Corporation for accident benefits.

Following this, ESI corporation subjected him for assessment of his disability, which resulted in nil disability. Based on this, ESIC declined to pay any disablement benefit. Thereafter, by way of on appeal, he moved the Employees State Insurance Court, which granted him Rs 2 lakh as compensation. 

It accounted for the aspect that since the other kidney is expected to do the work of both the kidneys, there may be complications to the existing kidney, so it is a disability.

Challenging this both ESIC and the chairman, ESI Medical Board, moved the MHC on the basis that the ESI court cannot overrule the finding of the medical board, and award compensation beyond the scope of the Act and the rules.

However, Justice Kirubakaran on obtaining fresh opinion from a medical board that the worker has future risk of deterioration in renal function, as the single available kidney has to work more and that he has moderate level of depression, enhanced the compensation to Rs 2.15 lakh towards compensation treating the loss of kidney as ‘permanent partial disablement’.