The SC has held that courts cannot substitute the opinion of the medical board and decide that a person had developed "schizophrenia" on account of his service condition.
The Supreme Court has held that courts cannot substitute the opinion of the medical board and decide that a person had developed "schizophrenia" on account of his service condition.
The apex court made the observation while upholding an appeal filed by the Union government challenging a decision of the Kerala High Court to grant pensionary benefits to family of AV Damodaran who died of schizophrenia in 1984 while working in the Indian Army as a "Sapper".
"The medical board had opined that the disability of AV Damodaran was not attributable to the military service nor has it been aggravated thereby and it is not connected with the service, as schizophrenia is a constitutional disease," a bench of
justices Dalveer Bhandari and Mukundakam Sharma observed.
The Kerala high court had directed the government to provide all pensionary benefits to Damodaran despite the fact that the medical board had held that the death was not attributable to the nature of his work which disentitled his family to any benefits as he worked for only five years.
Setting aside the high court's judgement, the apex court observed, "the medical board is an expert body and its opinion is entitled to be given due weight, value and credence. In the instant case, the medical board has clearly opined that the disability of late Shri AV Damodaran was neither attributable nor aggravated by the military service."
The apex court noted that in the opinion of the medical board no physical contributory factor was responsible for the psychotic breakdown of Damodaran.
"Thus, the condition of military service cannot be said to have triggered the onset of schizophrenia in the respondent. However, the possibility of the development of schizophrenia in the respondent as a result of family stress and pressure (which is regarded as a factor triggering the onset of this mental condition in some individuals) cannot be ruled out totally," the apex court said.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case if the family had already been paid the pensionary benefits, the same shall not be recovered, it said.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}