The Delhi High Court held that merely describing primary hypertension as a lifestyle disorder cannot justify denying disability pension to a retired Indian Air Force officer. The Court emphasized that medical authorities must assess individual-specific factors before rejecting.
The Delhi High Court ruled that simply labeling primary hypertension as a lifestyle disorder does not justify the denial of a disability pension to a retired officer of the Indian Air Force (IAF).
A bench comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet P.S. Arora stated that “lifestyle varies from individual to individual,” emphasizing that the medical board must provide reasons for its conclusions after a thorough examination of the individual case.
This decision was made while dismissing the Centre’s appeal against a ruling from the Armed Forces Tribunal, which stated that the IAF officer was entitled to a disability pension related to primary hypertension.
The bench noted in its January 19 judgment,
“It must be noted that lifestyle varies from individual to individual. Hence, a mere statement that the disease is a lifestyle disorder cannot be a sufficient reason to deny the grant of disability pension unless the medical board has duly examined and recorded the particulars relevant to the individual concerned,”
The tribunal’s conclusion was upheld by the court, stating that the petition lacked merit and was thus dismissed.
The officer, who joined the Air Force in October 1981, was discharged in March 2019 after completing over 37 years of service.
The Centre contested the disability pension, arguing that the officer’s hypertension developed in a peace area and was neither caused by nor aggravated due to military service.
They mentioned that the medical board classified the officer’s hypertension as an “idiopathic/lifestyle-related disorder.”
The court pointed out that it was acknowledged that the officer did not have any disability at the time of joining the IAF.
ALSO READ: OROP Controversy| Supreme Court Criticizes Centre for Delayed Pension Resolution
Furthermore, the medical board failed to provide reasons for its conclusion that the officer’s primary hypertension was not linked to military service and did not explain why it considered hypertension a lifestyle disorder.
The court stated,
“The position of law in this regard is clear that there is an obligation on the part of the medical board to give reasons for coming to a conclusion; therefore, the medical board must record the reasons, findings while discharging the onus placed upon it,”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
