Unreasoned Medical Board Opinion Can't Be Basis To Deny Disability Pension To Persons In Military Service: Kerala High Court

The division bench comprising Justice K Natarajan and Justice Johnson John were delivering the judgment in a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

The respondent was enrolled in the Regiment of Artillery in 1971 and discharged in 1987 after being diagnosed with Mitral Valve Prolapse (V-67). The Release Medical Board recorded that the disease did not exist prior to service, but marked it as “not connected with service” and described it as “constitutional,” without furnishing any supporting reasons.

His claim for disability pension was rejected on the ground that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The Armed Forces Tribunal, however, allowed his claim.

The Centre argued that the opinion of the Release Medical Board would show that the disability due to diagnosis of Mitral Valve Prolapse is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

It was further argued that without any causal connection between the disease or injury and the military service, the Tribunal is not justified in granting the disability element of pension to the respondent.

The Respondent argued that the onus of proving that the disability is not attributable to the military service, is on the authority, especially when an individual is physically fit at the time of enrolment and no note regarding adverse physician factor is made at the time of entering service.

The Court examined the interplay between Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 which deals with primary conditions for the grant of disability pension and Regulation 423 of the Regulations for Medical Services for Armed Forces, 1983, which deals with the Attributability of service.

Relying on Union of India and Ors. v Keshar Singh [(2007) 12 SCC 675] and other precedents, the Union of India contended that the opinion of the Release Medical Board should be treated as final and binding on medical aspects.

The Court relied on Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India [(2013) 7 SCC 316] and Union of India and another v Rajbir Singh [(2015) 12 SCC 264], and reiterated that a serviceman is presumed to be in sound condition at the time of enrolment if no adverse note exists.

Reliance was also placed on Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India [(2025) SCC OnLine SC 1064], which held that the Medical Board's obligation to provide reasons is “crucial, critical, decisive and necessary,” and not a mere formality.

Regulation 423(d) explicitly requires the Medical Board to specify reasons for its opinion. In the present case, while the Board marked the disease as “constitutional,” it provided no explanation as to why it was considered constitutional, how it was unrelated to service conditions etc.

“It is clear that when the serviceman is discharged from service and denied the disability element of pension on the basis of a medical opinion which is devoid of reasons, it would strike at the root of the action taken by the authority and such action cannot be sustained in law.” Court noted.

The Court further added:

“In the present case, as noticed from part III of the form, it is clear that the medical board has not given any reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the disease 'Mitral valve Prolapse V-67' is constitutional. The said opinion or conclusion is without assigning any reasons as to how the medical board has come to the conclusion that the disease is constitutional.”

The Court drew a clear distinction between a conclusion and reasons supporting that conclusion, observing that a bare opinion without reasoning cannot form the legal basis for denial of a statutory benefit.

“The medical board has not stated any reasons for their opinion that the disease is constitutional and we find no jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court and therefore, we find that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed” the Court held.

The Court thus dismissed the writ petition and upheld the grant of disability pension to the respondent.

Case Title: Union of India and Anr. v Mohanan Madathil Koliyat

Case No: WP(C) 37473/ 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw(Ker) 136

Counsel for Petitioner: Gayathri Krishnan (CGC)

Counsel for Respondent: T R Jagadeesh, Adi Narayanan, Jose Job