Directorate of Health Services, Government of Goa vs Tukaram S. Gaonkar

C.L. Pangarkar, J.—This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation. The opponent is the appellant.

The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:

One Vilasini was working as a sweeper at the Primary Health Centre at Pernem. On 23.12.1984 she reported for duty at 8.00 a.m. She was not feeling well and therefore, the Doctor examined her at the Primary Health Centre. Since she was not responding to the treatment, she was referred to the Goa Medical College, Bambolim. She was treated at Goa Medical College till 30.12.1984 on which day she died and the cause of death is given as Pyogenic Meningitis. It is alleged that she died while on duty and during the course of the employment. A claim was laid before the Workmen''s Commission. He recorded the evidence and directed the Health Department to pay Rs. 49,341/- to the respondent. Being aggrieved by that order, this appeal has been preferred.

None appeared for the appellant. I have heard Mr. Lobo for the respondent.

The material question that needs to be considered is whether there is even a casual connection between the ailment of the deceased of which she died and the nature of the employment. It is not in dispute that the deceased died of Pyogenic Meningitis. Dr. Kantilal Sawant, Medical Officer of the Health Centre has deposed that on 23.12.1984Vilasini reported for work and complained about giddiness. He states that she was given some treatment and she was referred to the Goa Medical College where she died of Pyogenic Meningitis. The original applicants do not dispute the cause of dea that all. In all cases where compensation is claimed, a casual nexus between the ailment and nature of employment has to be established. Although Dr. Sawant is examined and he talks about the cause of death as Pyogenic Meningitis, nothing is elicited to arrive at a conclusion that the nature of her work could result into the ailment with which she suffered. There is no certificate about such nexusnor is any other medical expert examined. Further it is not disputed that the deceased died in the hospital seven days after her ailment and in no case it could be said that she died during the course of her employment or while discharging her duties. The learned Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner has on surmises held that the sweeping and cleaning may have resulted into such ailment and it may have aggravated. There is no basis to draw such inference. The Medical Officer has been examined and nothing has been elicited from him to show that sweeping and cleaning could aggravate the ailment which the deceased was suffering. As stated earlier there is no evidence of even casual nexus between the nature of employment and her death. Since there is no connection with the cause of death and employment nor did she die of accident during the course of her employment, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation. The appeal must therefore, be allowed and order of Commission set aside.

I am told that the claimant has been paid half of the compensation. In view of the lapse of long period and in view of the fact that the compensation is already paid to the claimant, the Government may not recover that amount of compensation. With this observation, the appeal stands disposed of.