Merely calling hypertension lifestyle disorder not enough to deny disability pension: Delhi High Court

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has held that merely describing primary hypertension as a lifestyle disorder is not enough to deny disability pension to a retired Indian Air Force (IAF) officer.

A bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet P S Arora said lifestyle varied from individual to individual, and there was an obligation on the medical board to give reasons for its conclusion after duly examining the individual.

The court passed the order while rejecting the Centre's challenge to an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, which ruled that the IAF officer was entitled to the grant of the disability element of pension for primary hypertension.

"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," said the bench in its judgment passed on January 19.

"We are of the view that given the facts of this case, the conclusion drawn by the tribunal cannot be faulted. The petition being without any merit is dismissed," it ruled.

The officer joined the Air Force in October 1981 and was discharged from service in March 2019 on completion of 37 years, five months and four days of service.

The Centre opposed the grant of disability pension for hypertension and argued that the officer suffered the disability in a peace area, for reasons neither attributable nor aggravated by military service.

It was submitted that as per the medical board's finding, the officer's hypertension was a "idiopathic/lifestyle related disorder".

The court, in the judgement, noted that it was a conceded case that the officer did not suffer from any disability at the time of appointment in the IAF.

It further said that the medical board did not give any reasons to support its conclusion that the disability of primary hypertension was not relatable to military service. The court added that the board also did not give any reasons to state why hypertension was a lifestyle disability.

"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," said the court.