Summary
A sepoy invalided out with schizophrenia after about nine years' service was denied disability pension on a Medical Board opinion that the disease was a constitutional personality disorder. The Court held that under Regulation 423(d) of the Regulations for Medical Services for Armed Forces the Medical Board must record reasons for its opinion, that an opinion devoid of reasons cannot sustain discharge or denial of pension, and, since the Board's form was blank on history and reasons, granted disability pension with arrears limited to three years rather than remitting the matter after 27 years.
Issues
- Whether the denial of disability pension on the basis of a Medical Board opinion that records no reasons for finding the disease constitutional and not connected with service is sustainable.
- Whether, given the time elapsed, the matter should be remitted to the Medical Board or disability pension granted directly.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 173, Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961Quoted as the primary condition for disability pension: the individual must be invalided out on account of a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service and assessed at 20 per cent or above. (¶¶ 13, 15)
- Appendix II, paragraphs 2 to 4, Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961Appendix II requires a causal connection between the disablement and military service for attributability or aggravation, and directs that all direct and circumstantial evidence be considered with the benefit of reasonable doubt going to the claimant, more liberally in field service cases. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Regulation 423 (clauses (a), (c) and (d)), Regulations for Medical Services for Armed Forces, 1983Quoted in full. Under clause (a) it is immaterial whether the cause arose in a field or peace area; under clause (c) a disease leading to discharge is ordinarily deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at entry, unless medical opinion holds for stated reasons that it could not have been detected; under clause (d) the Medical Board decides the medical aspects, must specify reasons for its opinion, its opinion on the actual cause being final, while attributability is decided by the pension sanctioning authority. The Board here gave no reasons, so its opinion could not be acted upon. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 33)
Held
- The legal propositions culled by the Tribunal from Keshar Singh, Surinder Singh Rathore, A.V. Damodaran, Jujhar Singh and Talwinder Singh (disability must be attributable to or aggravated by service, primacy of the Medical Board's opinion, the initial onus on the authority where the individual was fit at enrolment, the deeming fiction that a disease arose in service if not noted at entry, and the need for a causal connection) are correct, but the Medical Board opinion treated as final under those Regulations must itself be supported by reasons before it can be acted upon. (¶¶ 12, 34, 35)
- Regulation 173 read with Appendix II requires that the disability be attributable to or aggravated by military service, with a causal connection, all evidence being considered and the benefit of reasonable doubt going to the claimant. Under Regulation 423 it is immaterial whether the cause arose in a peace or field area, a disease leading to discharge is deemed to have arisen in service if not noted at acceptance unless medical opinion states reasons why it could not then have been detected, and the Medical Board must specify reasons for its opinion. (¶¶ 15, 17)
- The requirement that the Medical Board give reasons is crucial and not a mere formality: its opinion is treated as final on the cause of disability and decides the serviceman's career and pension, and the reasons form the material on which the pension sanctioning authority decides. Discharge or denial of disability pension on a medical opinion devoid of reasons strikes at the root of the authority's action and is unsustainable in law. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 36)
- The Medical Board proceedings (Form AFMSF-16) recorded that the appellant had no such disability before joining, left the clinical details and medical history in Part II blank, and in Part III stated the bare conclusion that the disease was a constitutional personality disorder without any reasons, though the form itself required reasons to be stated fully. A conclusion is different from the reasons supporting it; an opinion without reasons or material is arbitrary and arrived at without application of mind, in violation of Regulation 423(d), and the record disclosed no material for the conclusion. (¶¶ 18, 19, 26, 27, 33)
- Disability pension provisions are a beneficial scheme to be construed liberally (Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya). A more liberal view is warranted in schizophrenia cases, as the illness impairs the serviceman's capacity to advance his own cause; and where the authority itself discharged the serviceman on the Medical Board's opinion rather than on his application, the onus of justifying discharge and denial of pension lies heavily on the authority, which fails if the opinion is unreasoned. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32)
- Remitting the matter to the Medical Board about 27 years after invalidation would not serve the interests of justice; the discharge was left undisturbed but disability pension was directed with immediate effect and attendant benefits, with arrears limited to the last three years. (¶¶ 37, 38)
Result
Appeal allowed. The rejection of disability pension dated 04.01.1999, the First Appellate Committee's order dated 22.05.2000 and the Armed Forces Tribunal's order dated 17.01.2013 were set aside. The order of discharge on medical invalidity was not disturbed, but the respondents were directed to grant the appellant disability pension with immediate effect with all attendant benefits as per rules, arrears being limited to the last three years.