Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India (2021) - Heart Ailment not a Disability under Disabilities Act

DATE: 10^th February, 2021

JUDGES:

• Sanjay Kishan Kaul
• Dinesh Maheshwari
• Hrishikesh Roy

PARTIES: Nawal Kishore Sharma (APPELLANT) Union of India (RESPONDENT)

SUBJECT

The present judgement ponders upon the scope of the expression ‘injury’ and ‘disability’ as stated in section 2(i) of the Disability Act and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The question before the hon’ble court was whether injury includes heart impairment or not.

AN OVERVIEW

1. In the case concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is hearing and appeal against the decision of High Court of judicature of Patna, where the Hon’ble court denied the seaman’s claim for disability compensation by making reference to clause 21 of National Maritime Board Agreement.
2. The appellant joined the offshore department of the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) in 1988 and after eight years, in 1996 on his own request was released and transferred to foreign going vessel with fresh registration.
3. He joined the crew in September 2009 and was released after 9 months in June 2010 with the declaration of being permanently unfit for sea-service, due to Dilated Cardiomyopathy.
4. The appellant referring to an article contended that cardio vascular disease is one of the several occupational diseases which, the seafarers suffer andthat injury need not be manifested externally or blood oozing kind but should also cover an impaired heart.
5. Also, it was contended that the failure of SCI to accommodating the seaman in an alternative job which is suitable for his condition is in contravention of Section 47 of the Personswith Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

NATIONAL MARITIME BOARD AGREEMENT

Clause 21- Death and Disability Compensation - Death compensation-Rs.12.85 Lacs. 100% disability compensation-Rs.14.85 Lacs.

In case of rating declared partially incapacitated whilst in employment above Disability Compensation shall be paid on proportionate basis. This Death &Disability Compensation shall not be paid if the death and/or disability has resulted due to the rating’s own wilful act.”

Clause 22- Severance Clause-With effect from 01/04/2006, a Rating borne on a Company’s Roster continuously for a period of not less than 5 years if declared permanently medically unfit for sea service by Company’s Medical Officer, severance compensation to be paid to such Rating as under:

For Ratings below age of 55 years:

@3 months’ Basic Wages per year of articled service including applicable leave periods on Company’s vessels and @1 ½ months’ Basic Wages per year of prospective service subject to a minimum compensation of Rs.2,75,000/-

For Ratings above age of 58 years

@3 months’ Basic Wages per year of prospective service subject to 4 months Basic Wages or Compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- whichever is higher. The above provision of compensation will not be applicable to a rating dealt with under the provisions Death and Disability Compensation.”

DISABILITIES ACT

Section 2i- "disability" means

(i) blindness;

(ii) low vision;

(iii) leprosy-cured;

(iv) hearing impairment;

(v) locomotor disability;

(vi) mental retardation;

(viii) mental illness;

ISSUES

Following are the issues raised before the Supreme Court of India:

• Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of disability compensation under clause 21 of the National Maritime Board Agreement?
• Whether the expression ‘injury’ includes heart ailment?

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

• Very often we hear of persons who suffer grave injuries while at work but to receive compensation for such injury the law sticks to the principle that to seek compensation connection between the injury and work has to be established. In this particular case was dealing with the question of proximate connection between a seaman’s work and heart ailment.
• It was the main contention of the respondents that the appellant never suffered any accidental injury during his time on the vessel, and the disability compensation is provided only when the incapacitation arises from the injury during voyage.
• The Court while interpreting clause 21 stated that it only can be enforced when there is 100% disability which is not proved in the present case. However, the issue does not arise out of accidental injury during his course of work on the vessel but whether his heart ailment could be considered as injury.
• To answer this, the court said that it was never claimed by the appellant that he suffered any injury on his duty. After that he was engaged for only nine months and no document was produced to establish the relation between his medical condition and his work. Dilated Cardiomayopathy condition might prevent a man from doing sea service but does not prevent him from doing other work. Since, this is not a case of 100% disability, the disability compensation under clause 21 is not merited.
• Further, referring to section 2(i) of the Disability Act, the court point out that the section takes into account various disabilities. However, the fact that heart ailment has not been mentioned in it implies the intention of the legislature to not include it in. Thus, the court shall not import words that the legislature chose not to.
• The Court held that the dilate cardiomyopathy is not covered by the broad spectrum of the impairments which create hindrance in full participation in society and, the High Court was correct in his decision to not grant disability compensation to appellant.

CONCLUSION

• The main objective to provide provision for disability compensation was to put the employer under obligation to provide financial assistance and remedy for loss of income to the employee who has suffered while performing his service.
• However, if the injury occurred has no casual connection with the nature of work, there is no liability on the employer and he is not responsible for it.
• The Supreme Court’s decision in denying disability compensation was right as no connection between the work and ailment was established. It might be the case that the heart ailment is the result of some other cause.
• Employer shall not be made liable for the injuries that arise solely out of the natural wear and tear and of the employee’s body. Also, the wide spectrum of ailments doesn’t cover heart ailment. Thus, the case was rightly decided.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgment