IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 Ins.APP.No. 23 of 2010() ------------------------ IC.30/2008 of EI COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): OPPOSITE PARTY: ----------------------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, THRISSUR-680 020. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT: ---------------------------------------------- P.KUNHIKUTTAN,E.S.I.NO.54/1735994, CHOLAKKANDY HOUSE,MUNDUPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL, SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL, SRI.BOBBY THOMAS. THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- INS.APPEAL.No.23 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Palakkad in I.C No.30 of 2008. The applicant was employed as Cone Packer in Malappuram Co- operative Spinning Mills limited. On 13.3.2005, while he was so working, at about 10.am, he felt severe chest pain and immediately he was admitted to the nearby hospital. He was kept in ventilator and it is found that he was suffering from Coronary Artery disease that is Dyslipidemia. Now, the court below has disposed of the application declaring that the applicant is entitled to claim TDB for the certified days of his absence from work by competent medical practitioners for treatment of heart disease that he had suffered on 13.3.2005. The learned counsel for the Employees State Insurance Corporation would contend that this cannot be treated as employment disease and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the benefits. It is true that the nature of the employment injury is a Cardiac disease. Cardiac disease can take place on account of numerable number of reasons. One such reason is the stress and strain of the work. INS.APPEAL.No.23 OF 2010 2 So, if the applicant's heart disease, he had anything to do with the stress and strain of the nature of the work, then, necessarily he will be entitled to get the benefits under the Act. But, one cannot as a whole categorise that heart disease is only on account of the stress and strain. So, the nature of the avocation, nature of the ailment, the opportunity or exposure by which the disease can become serious are all matters, within the province of a medical expert. The doctors may be able to say before court the fact that whether the stress and strain of the work had also contributed to the heart disease. But, it has not been considered in that direction and, therefore, the matter requires reconsideration by permitting the applicant before the court to adduce medical evidence in support of that contention. 2. Secondly, if the employment injury did not affect the loss of earning capacity in view of the continued earning capacity and in view of the continued employment of the injured person with usual pay and allowances and periodical increments disablement benefits should not be granted to such person. If the person still continues to receive the entire remuneration which is entitled to receive, then the question of loss does not arise but there may circumstances on account of the treatment INS.APPEAL.No.23 OF 2010 3 which he has to undergo, he may have to avail leave or absence from duty which prevents him from getting the normal renumeration he is entitled to. In such cases, the applicant may be entitled for the loss if that is on account of the stress and strain. This is also a matter which requires consideration by the court. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Insurance Court with a direction to permit both sides to adduce evidence regarding the entitlement of the applicant to claim the amount by adducing evidence in relation to the nature of work and whether it can cause heart disease or worsen it if it is already there. The applicant may also let in evidence regarding the actual loss which he suffered intermittently as a result of the employment injury. Needless to say the Insurance Corporation is also permitted to adduce evidence in support of its contention. E.I Court is directed to issue notice to both parties fixing the date of appearance. Disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. mns