The Supreme Court recently dismissed an appeal from a former Army personnel seeking a disability pension for an ischemic stroke, concluding that the condition was primarily linked to lifestyle factors rather than military service. This ruling reinforces the stance that personal health choices play a significant role in determining eligibility for pension benefits.
A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale evaluated the appeal concerning the case of Sarvesh Kumar vs. Union of India. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) had previously rejected the appeal, asserting that the stroke was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the individual’s service conditions.
The appellant experienced a medical incident identified as “Stroke Ischemic RT MCA Territory” and argued that the resulting disability should qualify for pension benefits outlined in Army regulations. However, the Supreme Court scrutinized the First Medical Report alongside the assessments made by the Medical Board and Medical Review Board, which indicated that the ex-soldier had a long-standing smoking habit, using around 10 bidis daily.
Referring specifically to Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, in conjunction with guidelines from the Guide to Medical Officers, 2002, the Court noted that disability pensions cannot be awarded for conditions resulting from an individual’s lifestyle choices, including tobacco use. The judges emphasized that smoking is a well-documented risk factor for ischemic strokes, which occur due to an obstruction of blood flow to the brain.
Consistently, the medical boards maintained that continuous smoking likely contributed to the stroke and found no causal relationship between the medical condition and the individual’s time in military service. In light of these conclusions, the Supreme Court chose not to intervene in the tribunal’s order.
This ruling reiterates the requirement for a clear and direct association between medical conditions and service circumstances in disability pension claims. It also highlights that health issues arising from personal habits do not fall within the compensation framework established by existing Army pension regulations.
