NO. 1466828M EX CFN NARSINGH YADAVversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

260                      [2019]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    13 S.C.R. 260              [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A                NO. 1466828M EX CFN NARSINGH YADAV
                                        v.
                          UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 7672 Of 2019)
B                             OCTOBER 03, 2019
           [L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
             Armed Forces: Military service – Disability pension –
      Appellant was appointed as Craftsman (Military Rank) and was
      posted at peace station – Invaliding Medical Board found him
C
      suffering from Schizophrenia which disability was assessed at 20%
      for a period of five years and held that the disability was neither
      attributed nor aggravated by military service – Consequently, he
      was discharged from service – Claim for disability pension – Rejected
      by the Armed Forces Tribunal – Plea of appellant that since no note
D     was given at the time of enrolment in the Army, therefore, such
      disability was to be attributed to military service – Held: It is not
      mechanical application of the principle that any disorder not
      mentioned at the time of enrolment is presumed to be attributed to
      or aggravated by military service – The question is as to whether
      the person was posted in harsh and adverse conditions which led
E
      to mental imbalance – Mere fact that Schizophrenia, a mental
      disorder was not noticed at the time of enrolment would not lead to
      presumption that the disease was aggravated or attributable to
      military service – Appellant was a young boy of 18 years at the time
      of enrolment – Even if he was suffering from any mental disorder
F     prior to enrolment, the same could not be detected as there were
      intervals of normality – He was posted in peace station as a Vehicle
      Mechanic – Neither the nature of job nor the place of posting was
      such which could have caused stress and strain leading to disability
      as attributed to or aggravated by military service – In this case,
      clause 14(d) of 1982 Rules, as amended in the year 1996 would be
G
      applicable as entitlement to disability pension shall not be considered
      unless it is clearly established that the cause of such disease was
      adversely affected due to factors related to conditions of military
      service – The invaliding Medical Board categorically held that the
      appellant was not fit for further service and there was no material
H
                                       260
   NO. 1466828M EX CFN NARSINGH YADAV v. UNION OF                       261
                     INDIA & ORS.

on record to doubt the correctness of the Report of the invaliding      A
Medical Board – Interference not called for – Guide to Medical
Officers (Military Pensions), 2002 - “Entitlement: General Principles
– Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 1980 – Entitlement
Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982.
      Administrative law: Opinion of Medical Board – Judicial           B
review of, scope – Held: Though, the opinion of the Medical Board
is subject to judicial review but the Courts are not possessed of
expertise to dispute such report unless there is strong medical
evidence on record to dispute the opinion of the Medical Board
which may warrant the constitution of the Review Medical Board –
Armed Forces.                                                           C

      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1. Annexure I to Chapter IV of the Guide to Medical
Officers (Military Pensions), 2002 — “Entitlement: General
Principles” points to certain diseases which may be undetectable
                                                                        D
by physical examination on enrolment including the Mental
Disorders; Epilepsy and Relapsing forms of mental disorders
which have intervals of normality, unless adequate history is given
at the time by the member. The Entitlement Rules itself provide
that certain diseases ordinarily escape detection including
Epilepsy and Mental Disorder, therefore, mere fact that                 E
Schizophrenia, a mental disorder was not noticed at the time of
enrolment will not lead to presumption that the disease was
aggravated or attributable to military service. [Para 16]
[272-C-E]
      2. The 1982 Rules classify the diseases which are affected        F
by climatic conditions, stress and strain and dietary complications.
The stress and strain cause the injuries such as Psychosis and
Psychoneurosis, Bronchial Asthma, Myocardial infarction, and
other forms of IHD and Peptic ulcer.” Therefore, each case has
to be examined whether the duties assigned to the individual
may have led to stress and strain leading to Psychosis and              G
psychoneurosis. Relapsing forms of mental disorders which have
intervals of normality and Epilepsy are undetectable diseases
while carrying out physical examination on enrolment, unless
adequate history is given at the time by the member. [Paras 17,
18][272-F-H]
                                                                        H
262            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A           3. The appellant was posted in peace station as a Vehicle
      Mechanic. Clause 14(d), as amended in the year 1996 would be
      applicable in his case as entitlement to disability pension shall
      not be considered unless it is clearly established that the cause
      of such disease was adversely affected due to factors related to
      conditions of military service. Since there is a possibility of non-
B     detection of mental disorder, therefore, it cannot be said that
      Schizophrenia is presumed to be attributed to or aggravated by
      military service. Though, the opinion of the Medical Board is
      subject to judicial review but the Courts are not possessed of
      expertise to dispute such report unless there is strong medical
C     evidence on record to dispute the opinion of the Medical Board
      which may warrant the constitution of the Review Medical Board.
      [Paras 19, 20, 21][272-B, D-E]
            Ex. Gnr. Laxmanram Poonia (Dead) through Legal
            Representatives v. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC
            697 : [2017] 2 SCR 220; Dharamvir Singh v. Union of
D
            India & Ors. (2013) 7 SCC 316 : [2013] SCR 1119;
            Union of India & Anr. v. Rajbir Singh (2015) 12 SCC
            264 : [2015] 2 SCR 183; Veer Pal Singh v. Secretary,
            Ministry of Defence (2013) 8 SCC 83 : [2013] 10 SCR
            579 – referred to
E                            Case Law Reference
      [2017] 2 SCR 220               referred to             Para 6
      [2013] SCR 1119                referred to             Para 6
      [2015] 2 SCR 183               referred to             Para 6
F
      [2013] 10 SCR 579              referred to             Para 12
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7672
      of 2019.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2011 of the Armed
G     Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Lucknow in OA No. 235 of 2010/
      Order dated 28.04.2017 in MA Nos. 720 & 721 of 2017 in OA No.235
      of 2010.
            Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Adv., Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Nitin
      P., Ms. Celesty Agarwal, Ms. Kirti Khangarot, Dinesh Bhati and
      Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Advs. for the Appellant.
H
       NO. 1466828M EX CFN NARSINGH YADAV v. UNION OF                            263
                         INDIA & ORS.

       Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG, Vivek Narayan Sharma, Amit Verma,                 A
Ms. Manjula Gupta, A. K. Sharma and Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs.
for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          HEMANT GUPTA, J.                                                       B
      1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the
Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow1 on September 23, 2011 whereby, the
claim of the appellant for grant of disability pension was not accepted.
       2. The appellant was enrolled in the Indian Army on December 2,
2003. The invaliding Medical Board found the appellant to be suffering           C
from Schizophrenia, which disability was assessed at 20% for a period
of five years. The opinion of the Board was that disability was neither
attributable to nor aggravated by military service and consequently, the
appellant was discharged from army service on May 8, 2007. The claim
of the appellant for disability pension was rejected departmentally and          D
later by the Tribunal and still aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court.
       3. The appellant was appointed as CFN - Craftsman (Military
Rank). In Annexure RP1 which includes the signed Personal Statement
of the appellant, he was posted at 3 EME Centre, Bhopal from December
2, 2003 to August 23, 2005 and thereafter at AD Static Workshop from             E
August 24, 2005 till the time, he was produced before the invaliding
Medical Board. Both the places of posting of the appellant were the
peace stations. In respect of disease, the appellant declared that he was
treated, firstly, at INHS, Nivarini Chilka on September 7 and 8, 2006,
then, at Command Hospital, Kolkata from September 9, 2006 to                     F
December 23, 2006. Thereafter, he was treated at Military Hospital,
Allahabad from January 21, 2007 to February 21, 2007 and finally, at
Command Hospital, Kolkata from February 23, 2007 till the time, he
was examined by the invaliding Medical Board. In Part I of the Personal
Statement, the Question asked was to “Give details of any incidents
during your service which you think caused or made your disability               G
worse”. The answer given by the appellant was ‘NIL’. In Part II of the
Report, the Commanding Officer answered ‘No’ to the question – “Did
the Duties involve Severe/exceptional stress and strain?”

1
    for short, ‘Tribunal’                                                        H
264            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A           4. The summary and opinion of the Specialist in Psychiatry of
      Command Hospital (Eastern Command), Kolkata dated April 10, 2007
      read as under:
            “Summary
            Period of Hospitalization:
B           Sec Hospital, Gopalpur            07 Sep 06 to 07 Sep 06
            INHS Kaiyani, Vizag               07 Sep 06 to 15 Sep 06
            CH (EC), Kolkata                  16 Sep 06 to 23 Dec 06
            Sick Leave                        24 Dec 06 to 21 Jan 07
            MH Allahabad                      21 Jan 07 to 22 Feb 07
C           CH (EC), Kolkata                  23 Feb 07 onwards till date
            AFMSF-10 dated 07 Sep 06 mentions “punctual, disciplines,
            dedicated, social drinker, above average competence, cheerful,
            active and outgoing, retention recommended, developed fever and
            headache on 06 Sep 06 following which he was noted to be
D           behaving abnormally.
            History of Present Illness:
            Individual was brought to psychiatric attention in mid Sep at the
            behest of unit authorities as he was talking irrelevantly, laughing
            and crying for no apparent reason, in the background of febrile
E           episode. Apparently functioning well until Sep 06 when he was
            noted to be aloof, lacked interest in his work, not taking self care
            nor reporting for duty in time. Found to be wandering aimlessly in
            the unit. Felt that others were planning to harm him; could hear
            them talking about him. Further when onboard the train to Vizag
F           felt he was being followed and things happening around him was
            in reference to him. When offered fruits by co-passenger felt it
            had a special meaning often noted to be taking irrelevantly, crying
            for his mother who had died about 12 years back. Felt that others
            came to know what he was thinking. Become violent when others
            tried to stop him or gave instructions to follow.”
G
            “Opinion
            21½ years old EME/Veh Mech with nearly 3½ years service, no
            past or family h/o psychiatric illness. Had a psychotic breakdown
            of schizophrenic nature in Sep 06 Managed as a case of
H           Schizophrenia F 20 and treated with antipsychotics, ECT and other
    NO. 1466828M EX CFN NARSINGH YADAV v. UNION OF                                265
             INDIA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

       supportive measures. Poor response to treatment. Presently                 A
       asymptomatic, residual negative features persist.
       In view of the above, onset of his psychotic breakdown at the
       start of the career, and persistence of residual negative features,
       he is unlikely to be a fit soldier for further service. Hence
       recommend to be invalided from service in category S5 of SHAPE             B
       classification as a case of Schizophrenia F20.”
       5. The Medical Board concluded that the disability is neither
attributed to army service nor aggravated by military service though it
assessed the disability at 20% for five years. Such opinion of the Medical
                                                                                  C
Board dated April 20, 2007 is the basis of the discharge of the appellant.
The opinion of the Medical Board is as under:
       “CERTIFICATE
       1. Certified that the IMB held in respect of No.14666828m CFN
       NS Yadav of AD State Wk Sp C/o 99 APO to a case of                         D
       SCHIZOPHRENIA F. 20.0.
       2. Individual is found fit for civil job.
       Date: 20 Apr. 2007                                      Lt. Col.
                                                             (Rajiv Kamra)”       E
      6. The appellant relies upon an order passed by this Court in Ex.
Gnr. Laxmanram Poonia (Dead) through Legal Representatives v.
Union of India & Ors. 2 as also the judgments in Dharamvir Singh v.
Union of India & Ors.3 and Union of India & Anr. v. Rajbir Singh4to
contend that since no note was given at the time of enrolment of the said         F
disease in the Army, therefore, such disability is to be attributed to military
service.
      7. In Laxmanram Poonia, there was a positive finding that
appellant was overburdened with work due to scarcity of staff and he
suffered hypertension resulting in lack of sleep and hunger due to                G
continuous restless duty hours for several days. This Court allowed the
appeal of the appellant and granted disability pension.
2
  (2017) 4 SCC 697
3
  (2013) 7 SCC 316
4
  (2015) 12 SCC 264                                                               H
266                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A            8. In Dharamvir Singh, the appellant was sepoy in the Corps of
      Signals of the Indian Army and was boarded out of service after nine
      years of service when he was suffering from schizophrenia. This Court
      relied upon Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pension), 1980 and the
      Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 5 to hold that
B     since no note was given at the time of enrolment of the person, therefore,
      such disease is presumed to be attributed to or aggravated by military
      service. The Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002 —
      “Entitlement: General Principles” has mentioned following diseases in
      para 27 of the judgment, which ordinarily escape detection at the time of
      enrolment:
C
                “(a) Certain congenital abnormalities which are latent and only
                discoverable on full investigations e.g. Congenital Defect of Spine,
                Spina bifida, Sacralisation,
                (b) Certain familial and hereditary diseases e.g. Haemophilia,
D               Congential Syphilis, Haemoglobinopathy.
                (c) Certain diseases of the heart and blood vessels e.g. Coronary
                Atherosclerosis, Rheumatic Fever.
                (d) Diseases which may be undetectable by physical examination
                on enrolment, unless adequate history is given at the time by the
E               member e.g. Gastric and Duodenal Ulcers, Epilepsy, Mental
                Disorders, HIV Infections.
                (e) Relapsing forms of mental disorders which have intervals
                of normality.

F               (f) Diseases which have periodic attacks e.g. Bronchial Asthma,
                Epilepsy, Csom, etc.”
                                                            (Emphasis Supplied)
            9. This Court also extracted the relevant provisions from the 1982
      Rules in the order, which read as under:-
G
                “5. The approach to the question of entitlement to casualty
                pensionary awards and evaluation of disabilities shall be based on
                the following presumptions:


H
      5
          for short, ‘1982 Rules’
   NO. 1466828M EX CFN NARSINGH YADAV v. UNION OF                             267
            INDIA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

      Prior to and during service                                             A
      (a) A member is presumed to have been in sound physical and
      mental condition upon entering service except as to physical
      disabilities noted or recorded at the time of entrance.
      (b) In the event of his subsequently being discharged from service
      on medical grounds any deterioration in his health, which has taken     B
      place, is due to service.
                xx                xx               xx
      9. Onus of proof.—The claimant shall not be called upon to prove
      the conditions of entitlements. He/She will receive the benefit of      C
      any reasonable doubt. This benefit will be given more liberally to
      the claimants in field/afloat service cases.
                xx                xx               xx
      14. Diseases.—In respect of diseases, the following rules will be
      observed—                                                               D
      (a) Cases in which it is established that conditions of military
      service did not determine or contribute to the onset of the disease
      but influenced the subsequent courses of the disease will fall for
      acceptance on the basis of aggravation.
      (b) A disease which has led to an individual’s discharge or death       E
      will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it
      was made at the time of the individual’s acceptance for military
      service. However, if medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated,
      that the disease could not have been detected on medical
      examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease will not       F
      be deemed to have arisen during service.
      (c) If a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must
      also be established that the conditions of military service
      determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the
      conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military            G
      service.”
      10. The Rule 14, as reproduced above, was amended vide
Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. 1(1)/81/D(Pen-C)
dated 20th June, 1996. The amended Clauses read as follows:
                                                                              H
268            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A           “Rule 14 (a)- For acceptance of a disease as attributable to military
            service, the following two conditions must be satisfied
            simultaneously:
            (i) That the disease has arisen during the period of military service,
            and
B           (ii) That the disease has been caused by the conditions of
            employment in military service.
            (b) If medical authority holds, for reasons to be stated, that the
            disease although present at the time of enrolment could not have
            been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for
C           service, the disease, will not be deemed to have arisen during
            service. In case where it is established that the military service
            did not contribute to the onset or adversely affect the course
            disease, entitlement for casualty pensionary award will not be
            conceded even if the disease has arisen during service.
D           (c) Cases in which it is established that conditions of military service
            did not determine or contribute to the onset of the disease but,
            influenced the subsequent course of the disease, will fall for
            acceptance on the basis of aggravation.
            (d) In case of congenital, hereditary, degenerative and
E           constitutional diseases which are detected after the individual has
            joined service, entitlement to disability pension shall not be
            conceded unless it is clearly established that the course of such
            disease was adversely affected due to factors related to conditions
            of military services.”
F            11. In Rajbir Singh, this Court held that the respondents having
      been discharged from service on account of medical disease/disability,
      the disability must be presumed to have been arisen in the course of
      service which must, in the absence of any reason recorded by the Medical
      Board, be presumed to have been attributable to or aggravated by military
      service. There is initial presumption that the respondents were all
G
      physically fit and free from any disease and in sound physical and mental
      condition at the time of their entry into service. The Court held as under:
            “9. As regards diseases Rule 14 of the Entitlement Rules stipulates
            that in the case of a disease which has led to an individual’s
            discharge or death, the disease shall be deemed to have arisen in
H
NO. 1466828M EX CFN NARSINGH YADAV v. UNION OF                              269
         INDIA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

  service, if no note of it was made at the time of individual’s            A
  acceptance for military service, subject to the condition that if
  medical opinion holds for reasons to be stated that the “disease
  could not have been detected on medical examination prior
  to acceptance for service, the same will not be deemed to
  have so arisen”. ……
                                                                            B
            xx                xx                 xx
  14. The legal position as stated in Dharamvir Singh case
  [Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 316 : (2013)
  2 SCC (L&S) 706] is, in our opinion, in tune with the Pension
  Regulations, the Entitlement Rules and the Guidelines issued to           C
  the Medical Officers. The essence of the rules, as seen earlier, is
  that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound
  physical and mental condition at the time of his entry into service
  if there is no note or record to the contrary made at the time of
  such entry. More importantly, in the event of his subsequent
  discharge from service on medical ground, any deterioration in            D
  his health is presumed to be due to military service. This necessarily
  implies that no sooner a member of the force is discharged on
  medical ground his entitlement to claim disability pension will arise
  unless of course the employer is in a position to rebut the
  presumption that the disability which he suffered was neither             E
  attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
            xx                xx                 xx
  16. Applying the above parameters to the cases at hand, we are
  of the view that each one of the respondents having been
  discharged from service on account of medical disease/disability,         F
  the disability must be presumed to have been arisen in the course
  of service which must, in the absence of any reason recorded by
  the Medical Board, be presumed to have been attributable to or
  aggravated by military service. There is admittedly neither any
  note in the service records of the respondents at the time of their       G
  entry into service nor have any reasons been recorded by the
  Medical Board to suggest that the disease which the member
  concerned was found to be suffering from could not have been
  detected at the time of his entry into service. The initial presumption
  that the respondents were all physically fit and free from any
                                                                            H
270                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A              disease and in sound physical and mental condition at the time of
               their entry into service thus remains unrebutted. Since the disability
               has in each case been assessed at more than 20%, their claim to
               disability pension could not have been repudiated by the appellants.”
             12. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Veer Pal Singh v.
B     Secretary, Ministry of Defence 6 rejected the opinion of invaliding
      Medical Board but directed the respondents to refer the case to Review
      Medical Board to reassess the medical condition of the appellant and to
      find out whether at the time of discharge from service, he was suffering
      from disease which made him unfit to continue in service. In the said
      case, the appellant was appointed in the year 1972 and was discharged
C     in view of the opinion of the invaliding Medical Board dated November
      14, 1977. The appellant has prayed for constitution of a fresh Medical
      Board to assess his disease and disability in a writ petition filed before
      the Allahabad High Court. This Court held as under:
               “10. Although, the courts are extremely loath to interfere with the
D              opinion of the experts, there is nothing like exclusion of judicial
               review of the decision taken on the basis of such opinion. What
               needs to be emphasised is that the opinion of the experts deserves
               respect and not worship and the courts and other judicial/quasi-
               judicial forums entrusted with the task of deciding the disputes
E              relating to premature release/discharge from the army cannot, in
               each and every case, refuse to examine the record of the Medical
               Board for determining whether or not the conclusion reached by
               it is legally sustainable.
                            xx             xx                xx
F              16. F.C. Redlich and Daniel X. Freedman in their book titled The
               Theory and Practice of Psychiatry (1966 Edn.) observed:
               “Some schizophrenic reactions, which we call psychoses, may
               be relatively mild and transient; others may not interfere too
               seriously with many aspects of everyday living…. (p. 252)
G
               Are the characteristic remissions and relapses expressions of
               endogenous processes, or are they responses to psychosocial
               variables, or both? Some patients recover, apparently completely,
               when such recovery occurs without treatment we speak of

H
      6
          (2013) 8 SCC 83
   NO. 1466828M EX CFN NARSINGH YADAV v. UNION OF                             271
            INDIA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

      spontaneous remission. The term need not imply an independent           A
      endogenous process; it is just as likely that the spontaneous
      remission is a response to non-deliberate but nonetheless
      favourable psychosocial stimuli other than specific therapeutic
      activity….” (p. 465)
                                                     (emphasis supplied)      B
      18. In Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) v. S.
      Balachandran Nair [(2005) 13 SCC 128 : 2006 SCC (L&S)
      734] on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal, this Court
      referred to Regulations 173 and 423 of the Pension Regulations
      and held that the definite opinion formed by the Medical Board          C
      that the disease suffered by the respondent was constitutional
      and was not attributable to military service was binding and the
      High Court was not justified in directing payment of disability
      pension to the respondent. The same view was reiterated in
      Ministry of Defence v. A.V. Damodaran [(2009) 9 SCC 140:
      (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 586]. However, in neither of those cases,            D
      this Court was called upon to consider a situation where the Medical
      Board had entirely relied upon an inchoate opinion expressed by
      the psychiatrist and no effort was made to consider the
      improvement made in the degree of illness after the treatment.
      19. As a corollary to the above discussion, we hold that the impugned   E
      order as also the orders dated 14-7-2011 and 16-9-2011 passed
      by the Tribunal are legally unsustainable. In the result, the appeal
      is allowed. The orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside and
      the respondents are directed to refer the case to the Review
      Medical Board for reassessing the medical condition of the              F
      appellant and find out whether at the time of discharge from service
      he was suffering from a disease which made him unfit to continue
      in service and whether he would be entitled to disability pension.”
       13. In the aforesaid case, the Court referred the matter to the
Review Medical Board in view of the fact that Psychiatrist has noted          G
that the appellant has improved with treatment. The Court referred to
Merriam Webster Dictionary;Report of National Institute of Mental
Health, USA; Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology; and
the booktitled ‘The Theory and Practice of Psychiatry’ authored by
F.C. Redlich and Daniel X. Freedman, to hold that the observations made
                                                                              H
272             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A     by Psychiatrist was substantially incompatible with the existing literature
      on the subject.
            14. However, in the present case, we find that there is no such
      infirmity in the report of the Medical Board which may warrant
      reconsideration of the physical condition and the extent of disability by
B     the Review Medical Board.
             15. We find that it is not mechanical application of the principle
      that any disorder not mentioned at the time of enrolment is presumed to
      be attributed to or aggravated by military service. The question is as to
      whether the person was posted in harsh and adverse conditions which
C     led to mental imbalance.
             16. Annexure I to Chapter IV of the Guide to Medical Officers
      (Military Pensions), 2002 — “Entitlement: General Principles” points
      out that certain diseases which may be undetectable by physical
      examination on enrolment including the Mental Disorders; Epilepsy and
D     Relapsing forms of mental disorders which have intervals of normality,
      unless adequate history is given at the time by the member. The
      Entitlement Rules itself provide that certain diseases ordinarily escape
      detection including Epilepsy and Mental Disorder, therefore, we are unable
      to agree that mere fact that Schizophrenia, a mental disorder was not
      noticed at the time of enrolment will lead to presumption that the disease
E     was aggravated or attributable to military service.
             17. The 1982 Rules classify the diseases which are affected by
      climatic conditions, stress and strain and dietary complications. The stress
      and strain cause the following injuries as per the said classification of
      diseases:
F
            “ (a) Psychosis and psychoneurosis.
              (b) Bronchial Asthma.
              (c) Myocardial infarction, and other forms of IHD.
              (d) Peptic ulcer.”
G
             18. Therefore, each case has to be examined whether the duties
      assigned to the individual may have led to stress and strain leading to
      Psychosis and psychoneurosis. Relapsing forms of mental disorders which
      have intervals of normality and Epilepsy are undetectable diseases while
      carrying out physical examination on enrolment, unless adequate history
H     is given at the time by the member.
   NO. 1466828M EX CFN NARSINGH YADAV v. UNION OF                                 273
            INDIA & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

       19. The appellant was a young boy of 18 years at the time of               A
enrolment and had been boarded within 3½ years of his service. Even if
he was suffering from any mental disorder prior to enrolment, the same
could not be detected as there were intervals of normality. The appellant
was posted in peace station as a Vehicle Mechanic. Neither the nature
of job nor the place of posting was such which could have caused stress
                                                                                  B
and strain leading to disability as attributed to or aggravated by military
service.
       20. In the present case, clause 14(d), as amended in the year
1996 and reproduced above, would be applicable as entitlement to
disability pension shall not be considered unless it is clearly established
that the cause of such disease was adversely affected due to factors              C
related to conditions of military service. Though, the provision of grant
of disability pension is a beneficial provision but, mental disorder at the
time of recruitment cannot normally be detected when a person behaves
normally. Since there is a possibility of non-detection of mental disorder,
therefore, it cannot be said that Schizophrenia is presumed to be attributed      D
to or aggravated by military service.
       21. Though, the opinion of the Medical Board is subject to judicial
review but the Courts are not possessed of expertise to dispute such
report unless there is strong medical evidence on record to dispute the
opinion of the Medical Board which may warrant the constitution of the            E
Review Medical Board. The invaliding Medical Board has categorically
held that the appellant is not fit for further service and there is no material
on record to doubt the correctness of the Report of the invaliding Medical
Board.
      22. Thus, we do not find any merit in the present appeal,                   F
accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Devika Gujral                                                Appeal dismissed.



                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H