WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, 307
Of the exceptions, this is the one most commonly invoked, and there is
reason to fear that this defence has resulted occasionally in the rejection
of equitable claims. Moreover the withholding of compensation for fatal
accidents which are covered by the exceptions gives rise to great hardship
to individuals and is not likely to have any appreciable educative effects
on other workmen. We recommend that the exceptions should not
apply in the case of fatal accidents. The case for abrogating the ex-
ceptions in other classes of accidents is less strong, but having regard to
the hardships which result, the majority of us consider that similar protec-
tion should be extended to workmen whose injuries involve the permanent
loss of 50 per cent or more of their earning capacity. Sir Victor Sassoon
and Sir Alexander Murray join in the recommendation that the Act
should be amended to enable compensation to be claimed in all cases of
fatal accidents, even though due to misconduct. They, however, do not
consider that an employer should be held liable for a non-fatal accident
that is directly attributable to intoxication, wilful disobedience or wilful
removal or disregard of any safety device. In a case of death the de-
pendents may experience difficulty in rebutting evidence that the accident
was due to misconduct. In a non-fatal case, the injured workman is in
a position to contest the evidence of his employer, on whom lies the onus
of proof that the injury was actually due to specific misconduct.
Industrial Diseases. .

The provisions relating to compensation for industrial disease
have seldom been invoked, and the Government of India have
utilised the power to schedule further industrial diseases on only one
occasion when they added * Mercury poisoning or its sequelae ”. This
disease, however, was added, not because it was prevalent in India,
but in order to meet the requirements of an International Convention.
Whilst we do not think that the incidence of industrial diseases is high,
they are probably more common than is generally realised and more
varied than Schedule III of the Act would suggest. We have had brought
to our notice some evidence of industrial dermatitis and chrome poisoning
and we believe that certain industrial diseases such as anthrax are to be
met with and that only a proportion of these cases are ever seen by a medical
officer. This is largely due to failure on the part of the worker either to
seek medical treatment or to seek treatment from a doctor experienced in
diagnosing such diseases. It is probable also that, under present condi-
tions, industrial diseases are frequently unrecognised, and that others will be
discovered when investigations are carried out. In these circumstances, we
consider that the matter deserves more attention than it has hitherto receiv-
ed. We have dealt elsewhere with industrial diseases generally, and
recommended the method which Government should adopt in order to
obtain further information concerning their incidence. In the meantime
employees may be placed at a disadvantage if certain diseases are omit-
bed, whilst employers may be involved in litigation based on untrust-
worthy medical evidence, if wide additions are made to the existing
Schedule before necessary investigations are made into the whole subject.
We therefore recommend two additions to Schedule TTI. These are