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