Heart Attack At Workplace Not Automatically 'Employment Injury', Must Show Nexus With Death: Gujarat High Court Denies Benefit Under ESI Act

Quashing a compensation order in favour of the kin of a mechanic who died of a heart attack at work, the Gujarat High Court said that heart attack may not automatically amount to an employment injury under ESI Act unless nexus is proved between the employee's death and the injury which must arise "out of and during" the course of employment. 

Referring to Section 2(8) Employees' State Insurance Act, Justice JC Doshi in his order noted that an "employment injury" is a personal injury caused to an employee either caused by an "accident or an occupational disease" arising out of and in the course of the employment.

The court referred to the cause of death recorded by the Medical Officer, Ahmedabad which read: “From gross postmortem finding and report of histopathology, final cause of death is cardio respiratory arrest due to coronary heart disease".

It thereafter said that the claimant did not lead any evidence to link the aforesaid "nexus" of death with the "employment injury" or establish that the injury was an injury arising out of the employment of the deceased or is an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the employment. 

"Learned advocate vehemently argued that the deceased was not suffering from any disease prior to his death during the employment, which suggests that the death of the deceased due to heart attack is occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment, as presumably, he was suffering from physical and mental stress and trauma. I am totally unimpressed by such contention. It is the employee who was to establish the exclusive link or nexus of injury and death whereby injury or occupational disease was arising out of and in the course of the employment," the court said.

The court referred to Supreme Court's decision in Mackinnon Mackenzie And Company Private Limited Versus Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak (1969) wherein it was held that there is a burden upon the claimant to prove that the accident or occupational disease was arising out of and in the course of the employment, though the claimant is not required to prove by leading direct evidence. 

The court further referred to Supreme Court's judgment in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr., (2007) wherein the apex court had held, "Sufferance of heart disease amongst young persons is not unknown . A disease of heart may remain undetected. A person may suffer mild heart attack but he may not feel any pain. There must, thus, be some evidence that the employment contributed to the death of the deceased. It is required to be established that the death occurred during the course of employment".

The high court thus held that there was no evidence "proving the nexus between the occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the employment and death" and thus the ESI Act cannot grant any "dependency benefit" to an employee.

The deceased was working as a Fitter mechanic at Bajaj Processors, when on 6.9.2004 while working he suddenly complained of chest and abdomen pain.

Since his condition had worsened, he was shifted to the Hospital where the doctor declared him dead. The postmortem revealed cause of death as cardiac respiratory arrest due to coronary heart disease. His family initially filed an application for compensation before the ESI Corporation, which was rejected. Against this, his kin moved before the ESI Court seeking compensation which was allowed. Aggrieved, the ESI Corporation moved the high court in appeal.

The ESI corporation argued that the high court had in First Appeal No.5069 of 2023 believed that heart attack or heart disease being reason for death, is not an employment injury and therefore, the claimant is not entitled to claim any compensation.

It was submitted that the facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the case in First Appeal No.5069 of 2023 and thus, applying the ratio to the facts of the present case the ESI Court had committed serious error in granting dependency benefit to the claimant.

It was argued whether heart attack being simplicitor cause of death can be considered as employment injury within section 2(8) of the ESI Act and stated that no evidence was produced by claimant to suggest that the deceased was suffering from physical stress and trauma and which has developed heart disease. It was submitted that at no point of time prior to the incident, did the deceased complain of any physical stress and trauma or angina pain being result of physical and mental stress and trauma being root cause of heart disease. 

The claimant's counsel on the other argued that a specific pleading was made that the deceased had complained of physical work load and which may be converted into mental stress and trauma being root cause of the heart disease. It was submitted that necessary ingredients as defined in section 2(8) of the Act are pleaded and established in the matter.

Further referring to Section 51A ESI Act it was submitted that presumption as to accident arising in course of employment runs in favour of the claimant and the ESI Corporation is required to rebut this presumption by leading evidence. 

It was submitted that ESI Corporation has not led evidence of any of the officers, who has prepared the medical report to the effect that the deceased had expired due to natural causes. Thus ESI Corporation has failed to dislodge statutory burden upon it, as against that, the claimant has successfully established his claim and in that circumstances and so no substantial question of law arise in the matter.

Allowing the ESI Corporation's appeal the court set aside the ESI court's order. It however clarified that the dependency benefit given to the claimant uptill now, if any, shall not be recovered.

Case title: EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION v/s  SUDHABEN RAMANBHAI PATEL & ORS.

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 656 of 2011

Click Here To Read/Download Order