Manogar A/L M Rahman v Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial (BA-16-7-01/2024)

Security Appellant Board (SSAB) dated 23.11.2023 which dismissed his claim for invalidity pension.

After careful consideration of the cause papers and submissions, this Court decided to dismiss the appeal. The following are the grounds for that decision. Proceedings before the SSAB

The Appellant was a container lorry driver with Antamegah Logistics Sdn Bhd and was an insured person within the definition in section 2 Employees Social Security Act 1969 (Act 4).

The Appellant made his first claim for invalidity pension on 23.7.2021. His claim was referred to the medical board for determination and certification of his invalidity. The medical board turned him down and the appellate medical board

The Appellant made his second claim on 21.12.2022 but it was rejected as he was already 60 years and 5 months old.

The current claim was made on 30.5.2023 and rejected terdahulu dan kedua Jemaah Doctor Rayuan dan Jemaah Doktor Rayuan Khas telahpun mengesahkan bahawa Perayu

The Appellant appealed to the SSAB.

The SSAB referred to the following provisions in Act 4

section 32 which places the jurisdiction for the determination of invalidity or disability questions to the medical board;

(ii) section 33 which provides the mechanism for appeals against the determination of the medical board to the appellate medical board; and

(iii) section 83(3) which provides that the determination of any question on invalidity or disablement must be obtained from the medical board or appellate medical board.

Then in

Dengan pemakaian undang-undang yang sama, memandangkan isu keilatan telah diputuskan oleh Jemaah doktor dan seterusnya oleh Jemaah doktor Rayuan, panel JKRS telah dengan sebulat suara menolak rayuan Perayu yang berdasarkan kepada keputusan tidak menyokong terdapatnya keilatan mana adalah diluar bidang kuasa untuk menentukan isu keilatan dan perlu mematuhi dan memberi efek kepada keputusan Jemaah doktor dan Jemaah doktor Rayuan.

JKRS tidak berkuasa dibawah Akta tersebut untuk menyemak semula atau tidak bersetuju dengan keputusan Jemaah doktor dan Jemaah doktor Rayuan.

s, it is clear that his complaint is regarding the failure of the medical board and later the appellate medical board to evaluate his first claim for invalidity pension with due diligence.

The medical board and appellate medical board failed to consider that he was initially diagnosed with lumber spondylosis with radiculopathy of mild weaken of ankle dorsiflexion. He has undergone spine operation and has had sustained permanent disability. He is now wheelchair bound.

The Appellant submitted that he fulfilled the definition of invalidity in section 16(1) and (2) Act 4 and fell within the Regulations 1971 (Regulations).

This Court perused the statutory framework of Act 4 and the Regulations. It is clear from section 83(3) Act 4 that the determination of invalidity is entrusted to the medical board with a right of appeal to the appellate medical board. The SSAB only has jurisdiction to decide on other issues relating to the s, benefits or disputes not related to question of invalidity or disablement.

The statutory scheme of Act 4 and the Regulations make it clear that the determination of the medical board and the appellate medical board are final and binding. Neither the SSAB nor the civil Court are empowered to re-evaluate this determination or substitute their own opinion.

The same issue arose in Sitamah Yarayah v. Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosical [2012] 1 LNS 1106, wherein Has Zanah Mehat J (as Her Ladyship then was) held - Dengan hormatnya, saya telah meneliti alasan-alasan yang dikemukakan oleh kedua-dua hakim yang bijaksana di dalam kes Mary Pushpam Savarimuthu v. Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial dan Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial v. Rahim Darus supra, mahkamah ini berpendapat keputusan JRKS adalah betul. Mahkamah ini tidak perlu membuat tafsiran lain kerana subseksyen 84(3) Akta adalah jelas memperuntukan bahawa soal keilatan atau hilang upaya hendaklah dirujuk oleh Pertubuhan kepada Jemaah Doktor (JR) atau Jemaah Doktor Rayuan (JDR) bagi membolehkan JRKS menentukan jumlah tuntutan. Peruntukan tersebut seperti berikut-

Jika terbit apa-apa prosiding di hadapan Jemaah soal keilatan atau hilang upaya dan keputusan sesuatu jemaah doktor atau jemaah doktor rayuan belum didapati mengenainya manakala keputusan atas soal itu adalah perlu untuk menentukan tuntutan atau soal itu di hadapan Jemaah, Jemaah hendaklah mengarahkan Pertubuhan supaya mendapatkan soal itu diputuskan menurut Akta ini dan kemudiannya hendaklah menentukan tuntutan atau soal di hadapannya mengikut keputusan jemaah doktor atau jemaah doktor rayuan. [11] Manakala subseksyen 84(5) Akta juga adalah jelas menyatakan bahawa Mahkamah Sivil juga tidak mempunyai kuasa dalam apa-apa soal atau pertikaian yang berdasarkan Akta yang kena diputuskan oleh jemaah doktor (JD) atau jemaah doktor rayuan (JDR). Peruntukan subseksyen 5 seperti berikut-

Tiada Sesuatu Mahkamah Sivil dan jua berkuasa memutuskan atau menguruskan apa-apa soal atau pertikaian yang, menurut Akta ini, kena diputuskan oleh suatu jemaah doktor atau sesuatu jemaah doktor rayuan. [12] Oleh kerana hal keilatan adalah di bawah bidang kuasa jemaah doktor atau jemaah doktor rayuan, bukan sahaja JRKS tidak mempunyai kuasa dalam perkara keilatan ini, malahan Mahkamah Sivil juga tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk menentukannya. [13] Saya berpendapat rayuan ini adalah cacat berdasarkan seksyen 84(5) seperti di atas dan juga seksyen 91(2) Akta yang memperuntukan seperti berikut-

Rayuan boleh dibuat kepada Mahkamah Tinggi terhadap sesuatu perintah jemaah rayuan yang ditubuhkan di bawah atau menurut Akta ini jika rayuan itu berkenaan dengan soal undang-undang yang material.

Likewise, in Mary Pushpam Savarimuthu v. Ketua Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Social [2006] 7 CLJ 511, Raus J (as His Lordship then was) held at 516 Section 84 of the Act, does not empower the Social Security Appellate Board the jurisdiction to determine on the issue of invalidity or disablement. The power to determine on the issue of invalidity or disablement under the Act is with the Medical Board. Section 32 of the Act provides as follows: Any question:

whether the relevant accident or disease has resulted in the invalidity; or

whether the relevant employment injury has resulted in permanent disablement; or

whether the extent of loss of earning capacity can be assessed provisionally or finally for the purpose of disablement benefit; or

whether the assessment of the proportion of the loss of earning capacity is provisional or final for the purpose of disablement benefit; or

in the case of provisional assessment for the purpose of disablement benefit as to the period for which such as an assessment shall hold good; shall be determined by a medical board constituted in accordance with the provisions of the regulations, if any, and such question shall hereinafter be referred to as the "invalidity question" or "disablement question", as to the case may be. [13] Further, the Act confers on an aggrieved party a right to appeal against the decision of the Medical Board to the Appellate Medical Board and not to the Social Security Appellate Board. Section 33(2) of the Act reads: 33(2) If the insured person or the Organisation is not satisfied with the decision of the Medical Board, the insured person or the Organisation may appeal, in the prescribed manner, and within the prescribed time, to the Appellate Medical Board constituted in accordance with the provisions of the regulation. [14] The Act does not provide a further appeal against the decision of the Appellate Medical Board to the Social Security Appellate Board. In fact the Social Security Appellate Board is precluded from deciding on the issue of invalidity or disablement by virtue of s. 83 which reads:

If in any proceedings before the Board an invalidity or disablement question arises and the decision of a medical board or appellate medical board has not been obtained on the same and the decision of such question is necessary for the determination of the claim or question before the Board, the Board shall direct the Organisation to have the question decided by this Act and shall thereafter proceed with the determination of the claim or question before it in accordance with the decision of the For the Appellant Ho Wee Keong Messrs Sabarudin Othman & Ho For the Respondent