Doctor's Disability certificate not readable, Allahabad High Court seeks explanation from doctor [Read Order]

Doctor's Disability certificate not readable, Allahabad High Court seeks an explanation from doctor [Read Order]

The lack of clarity of the handwriting of doctors has always been a problem for the common people and people have been thinking why the handwriting of the doctors' hand is so bad. However, it is very rare that the court will look into such matter and ask for the explanation from the doctor regarding the diagnosis given by him.

The Allahabad High Court has issued a warning to the doctor issuing the disability certificate on a regular basis, because the disability that he has written in the diagnosis is not always readable and it is not clear that what type of disability the worker suffered and demanded compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 suffered due to an accident on the job.

Considering that the concerned doctor has issued a certificate of disability in many cases, the court has instructed him to be careful during issue of disability certificate and the reason for the disability related to the person in the certificate, facts, illness and It has been asked to make a clear mention of what kind of injuries have occurred.

In the present case, Justice Ashok Kumar has asked the concerned doctor to file an affidavit and tell him what he wrote in a disability certificate under a "Diagnosis" of a worker named Guddu. The court said that if he does not do so, he will personally have to appear before the court. The court, while hearing the appeal of New India Assurance Company Limited against the award passed in favour of Guddu Kumar in July for the compensation given by the Labour Commissioner in Kanpur region, under the Labour Compensation Act, 1923. 

Guddu Kumar hired a person named Babbal Bhatia as a truck driver on the salary of Rs 8,000 per month. On October 23, 2016, on the night of the accident, according to the instructions of Bhatia, Guddu was going to Patna with the truck. When he reached Patna, he had a face-to-face collision with a vehicle. 22-year-old Guddu had a broken bone and was brought to Kanpur for surgery. After surgery, he became disabled and he was no longer able to drive any vehicle. 

The labour commissioner's office asked to pay him a compensation of Rs 5.24 lakh.

Under Section 4 of the Labour Compensation Act, 1923 the doctor issued a certificate of 50 percent disability and wrote some notes under "Diagnosis" in the certificate. During the hearing of appeals, during appearing for New India Assurance Company Limited, advocate Prajal Mehrotra relied on Explanation II to Section 4 (c) (ii) of the Act, in which medical practitioner assess the claimant's earning potential losses. Requires therapeutic physician to report indirect injuries in relation to the loss of earning potential in relation to various injuries specified in Schedule 1 of the Act caused due to the injury. 

On this plea, Justice Kumar ordered standing counsel Avinash Chandra Tripathi to send a copy of the certificate issued by Dr Avtar Singh on September 27, 2017 with a copy of this order and ask him for an explanation of disability certificate. What he wrote under Diagnosis, because what he has written cannot be read, and this thing can not be explained by anyone other than him. "This court has found that in many cases the same doctor (Dr Avtar Singh) has issued a disability certificate and the diagnosis which is written is not readable from any party's counsel. 

Order:

“Dr Avatar Singh is hereby directed to file his affidavit explaining the diagnosis mentioned by him in the instant disability certificate no. 3949 dated 27.09.2017 issued in favour of the claimant, Guddu Kumar,”. Justice Kumar went on to direct “Dr Avatar Singh, who is regularly issuing the disability certificates to take care while issuing the disability certificate clearly indicating the cause of disability, the facts and the ailment and other relevant injuries cause of disability, the facts and the ailment and other relevant injuries caused to the victim”