IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 77 of 2006() ------------------------ IC.44/2002 of E.I.COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, E.S.I.C.BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, ESI CORPN. RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT ------------------------ B.SUGATHAN, LABOURER, RAILING SECTION, QUILON CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILL, RESIDING AT JINI BHAVAN, CHATHANNOOR P.O. THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: INS APPEAL No. 77/06 ORDER ON IA No. 2256/06 IN INS. APPEAL No.77/06 DISMISSED 3.10.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- Ins. Appeal No. 77 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Kollam, in I.C. No.44/02. The petitioner therein was a labourer working in the Railing Section of the Quilon Co-operative Spinning Mill. He had moved an application for extended sickness benefit. There is no dispute that he was on certified absence from duty from 8.1.01 to 2.10.02 on account of rheumatic arthritis. The Corporation considered the same and granted him the sickness benefit for a period of 79 days from 10.1.01 to 4.2.01 and from 6.2.01 to 30.3.01. Thereafter it was not granted. He was referred to the Deputy Medical Commissioner, South Zone, Bangalore and it was forwarded to the Deputy Medical Commissioner, New Delhi seeking relaxation of Part I of the resolution of the ESI Corporation dt. 5.12.99. It was not accepted. It is against that decision, the matter has come up before the EI court. The EI Court extended the benefit as prayed for. Aggrieved by that decision, the ESI Corporation has come up in appeal. Ins. Appeal No.77/06 2 2. Admittedly, the applicant before the EI Court was suffering from rheumatic arthritis. Rheumatic arthritis is a disease which affects the joint and in chronic cases it arrests the mobility itself. In certain types of arthritis, if not properly cared to, it may affect the heart itself. That is why it is said that arthritis licks the joint and bites the heart. Another form of arthritis is rheumatoid arthritis which affects the joint and in chronic cases of arthritis it also results in disfiguration and disablement. The protracted form of suffering is only an indicative of the nature of the ailment and suffering. As observed by the EI Court when you are on medication it may bring down your ESR. Nothing is referred to about the result of the ASO titre test, which is an acid test in the diagnosis of rheumatism. The Doctors attached to the Corporation themselves have certified the absence of the applicant from duty on account of the suffering from rheumatic arthritis. When it is certified, it would amount to the disablement of the person to do the work. Under such circumstances, the law envisages extended benefit and the authorities have to exercise that discretion judiciously so that the proper intention of the legislature does not get defeated. Ins. Appeal No.77/06 3 3. Therefore, though not discussed in detail, I find that the the EI Court has decided the case only in the proper direction and the rejection by the Deputy Medical Commissioner does not confirm to the legal requirements so as to deny the extended benefit to the person. From these discussions I hold that there is noting to interfere with the decision rendered by the EI Court. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps Ins. Appeal No.77/06 4