Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan has held that disability certificates issued by a Medical Board must be accepted as expert evidence unless a reassessment is ordered. It set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, which reduced a 100% disability certificate to 50% without reevaluation. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Prakash Chand Sharma v. Rambabu Saini & Anr. (2025). 
• The Court held that tribunals cannot substitute their own judgment over expert opinions. These ruling impacts compensation claims for disability assessments. 

What was the Background of Prakash Chand Sharma v. Rambabu Saini & Anr. Case? 

• The incident occurred on 23rd March 2014, when the claimant-appellant was returning to his village Rajpur Badha from Cheel Ki Bawdi on his motorcycle (No. RJ 02 SC 4860). 
• A Maruti Omni vehicle (No. RJ 02 UA 1663) coming from the opposite direction was allegedly driving on the wrong side of the road, resulting in a collision. 
• The claimant-appellant suffered severe injuries, particularly to his head and right leg.  
• An FIR (No. 81/14) was registered at Police Station Tehla regarding the offence. 
• The victim was initially taken to Katta Hospital, Bandikui, and subsequently transferred to Sawai Mansingh Hospital, Jaipur. Though he survived the accident, he remains in a comatose state. 
• The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Alwar heard the matter as Claim No. 575/2014, focusing on three primary issues:  
  • The rashness and negligence of the offending vehicle. 
  • The claimant's entitlement to compensation and its quantum. 
  • The insurance company's liability. 
• The MACT awarded compensation of Rs. 16,29,465/-, which upon appeal was enhanced by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench to Rs. 19,39,418/-. 
• A Medical Board assessed the claimant's condition and issued a certificate stating 100% permanent disability, noting that:  
  • The patient has no speech and impaired intellectual functions. 
  • He cannot stand or walk. 
  • He requires catheterization. 
  • He is completely dependent on others for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). 
  • He experiences frequent falls and infections. 
• Both the MACT and High Court questioned the Medical Board's assessment and reduced the disability percentage to 50%, primarily due to the absence of testimony from a neurosurgeon or treating doctor. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in questioning the competence of the Medical Board to assess permanent disability without ordering a reassessment. 
• The Court observed that if the Tribunal had doubts about the medical certificate's reliability, it should have directed a re-assessment rather than substituting its own judgment regarding disability determination. 
• The Court noted that since no reassessment was ordered, the Medical Board's opinion, being expert evidence, must be treated as conclusive. 
• Regarding the disability assessment, the Court observed that the medical report clearly established that:  
  • The claimant-appellant had no speech or intellectual functions. 
  • He was unable to stand or walk. 
  • He required catheterization. 
  • He was entirely dependent on others for daily activities. 
• The Court found the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded towards mental and physical agony, pain, and loss of amenities to be insufficient given the circumstances. 
• On attendant charges, following the computation principle from Kajal's case, the Court calculated it as Rs. 7,80,000/- (Rs. 5,000 x 12 x 13). 
• The Court split the compensation under 'Physical and Mental Agony' (Rs. 2,00,000/-) from the general head and added Rs. 6,00,000/- under 'Pain and Suffering'. 
• Considering the age, nature of disability, and other relevant factors, the Court determined that the finding of 100% disability was justified. 
• The Court relied on recent precedents including K.S Murlidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi for determining compensation under various heads. 
• The Court enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 48,70,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition, significantly increasing it from the High Court's award of Rs. 19,39,418/-. 
• The Court ruled that in cases where expert medical evidence is available through a Medical Board, courts should not substitute their own assessment without proper justification or reassessment. 

What are Important Legal Principles Established by the Supreme Court's Ruling on Disability Certification and Compensation? 

• Legal Principles Established: 
  • A Medical Board's disability certificate constitutes expert evidence and should be accepted as such by courts. 
  • If a tribunal doubts a medical certificate, it must order reassessment rather than substitute its own judgment. 
  • Courts cannot independently determine disability percentages without expert medical evidence. 
• Compensation Calculation Principles: 
  • Future income loss must be calculated based on the certified disability percentage. 
  • Future prospects must be added at 25% for claimants below 50 years of age. 
  • Attendant charges should be computed following the formula established in Kajal's case. 
  • Physical and mental agony must be assessed separately from pain and suffering. 
  • Interest at 7% per annum from the date of claim petition is applicable. 
• Motor Vehicle Act Principles: 
  • Assessment of rashness and negligence of the offending vehicle. 
  • Determination of compensation quantum. 
  • Establishing insurance company liability. 
  • Consideration of permanent disability in compensation calculation. 
• Evidence Law Principles: 
  • Expert evidence (Medical Board certificate) takes precedence over non-expert judicial assessment. 
  • The burden of disproving the claimant's case lies with the respondents. 
  • Medical evidence must be properly proved through competent witnesses. 

What are the Guidelines and Regulations for Issuing a Disability Certificate in India? 

• Disability Certificate: 
  • It serves as official proof of a person's disability status. 
  • It is an important tool for availing benefits, facilities, and rights from Central and State Governments. 
  • The certificate enables access to entitlements under various enabling legislations. 
  • It is regulated by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
• Competent Authority to Issue Certificate: 
  • A Medical Board duly constituted by the Central or State Government is the competent authority. 
  • The Medical Board must have at least three members. 
  • One member must be a specialist in the relevant disability field:  
    • For mental retardation: Psychiatrist/Pediatrician/Clinical Psychologist. 
    • For visual disability: Ophthalmologist. 
    • For speech/hearing disability: ENT Specialist. 
    • For locomotor disability: Physical Medicine/Rehabilitation/Orthopedics specialist. 
  • The Director General of Health Services is the final authority for resolving any disputes.
• Conditions for Obtaining Certificate: 
  • The applicant must be an Indian citizen. 
  • Medical reports explaining the type of disability must be provided. 
  • The minimum degree of disability must be 40% to be eligible. 
  • Required documents include:  
    • ID copy of the person with disability. 
    • Two photographs showing the disability. 
    • All available medical and psychological reports.
• Permanent/Temporary Certificate: 
  • Temporary certificates:  
    • Valid for five years. 
    • Issued for temporary disabilities. 
    • Medical Board must specify if condition is:  
      • Progressive/non-progressive. 
      • Likely to improve/not likely to improve. 
      • Whether reassessment is recommended. 
  • Permanent certificates:  
    • Issued for permanent disabilities. 
      1. Validity is marked as 'Permanent.' 
      2. Given when there are no chances of variation in disability degree. 
      3. No refusal of certificate without giving applicant opportunity to be heard. 
• The Medical Board may review its decision upon representation by the applicant, considering all facts and circumstances.