Permanent disability determination remanded for fresh consideration in light of subsequent medical reassessment.

The respondent-workman, an insured person under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (“ESI Act”), was employed as a batching machine operator at Arvind Mills. On 19 June 2019, caustic soda allegedly entered his right eye during employment, following which he received treatment at ESIC Model Hospital and the M. & J. Institute of Ophthalmology, Ahmedabad. His right-eye vision was initially reported as 6/36.

The Medical Board assessed his disability at 0% on 4 March 2020. On his appeal, the Medical Appeal Tribunal assessed permanent disability at 10% by order dated 22 December 2023. The ESI Court, in ESI Second Appeal No. 2 of 2024, enhanced the disability assessment to 15%.

The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation challenged the ESI Court’s order under Section 82 of the ESI Act. During the appeal, the High Court directed reassessment by the Medical Board. The subsequent report dated 30 July 2026 recorded visual acuity of 6/6 with spectacles, normal colour vision, normal intraocular pressure, normal gonioscopy, and a normal fundus examination. It concluded that the workman did not currently possess any visual impairment or disability under the applicable Government of India guidelines.

Whether the ESI Court was justified in enhancing the respondent-workman’s permanent disability assessment from 10% to 15% on the evidence then available?

Whether, in light of the subsequent Medical Board report finding no current visual disability, the matter required remand to the ESI Court for fresh consideration?

The appeal was considered under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, which provides for an appeal to the High Court against an order of the Employees’ Insurance Court, subject to the statutory requirements.

The Court applied the principle that an adjudicatory determination concerning employment-related permanent disability must be based on relevant and reliable medical evidence. Where subsequent medical evidence materially affects the basis of the impugned determination, the appellate court may set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration, while leaving the merits to be decided by the competent forum in accordance with law.

The High Court noted that the ESI Court had enhanced the disability assessment to 15%, whereas the newly obtained report from the M. & J. Institute of Ophthalmology found normal ocular functions and no visual disability under the applicable Government guidelines.

Since this subsequent medical evidence materially contradicted the basis for the enhanced disability assessment, the High Court held that the ESI Court’s order could not be sustained without reconsideration. Rather than finally determining the percentage of disability itself, the Court remanded the matter to the ESI Court to evaluate the complete record, including the 30 July 2026 medical report.

The matter was remanded to the ESI Court for fresh adjudication after considering the report of the M. & J. Institute of Ophthalmology, Ahmedabad, in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations or the earlier findings. The parties were directed to cooperate for expeditious disposal, and the Registry was directed to transmit the medical report and record to the ESI Court. The connected civil application, if any, was disposed of as having become infructuous.