Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed the disability pension claim of a former Army soldier, holding that an ischemic stroke suffered by him could not be considered attributable to or aggravated by military service. The Medical Board had found that the appellant's longstanding habit of smoking bidis was a contributing risk factor for the stroke, and the Court noted that under the applicable regulations, compensation is not available for disablement arising from tobacco use, as such habits fall within a member's personal control. The Court found no ground to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.

The appeal arose from a claim for disability pension by former Army personnel who suffered from “Stroke Ischemic RT MCA Territory.” The appellant challenged the decision of the Tribunal which had declined to interfere with the Medical Board’s opinion that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The Tribunal had referred to Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and paragraph 6 of the Guide to Medical Officers, 2002, concerning exclusion of compensation in cases involving intemperate use of alcohol, tobacco, or drugs.

Also Read: Post-Facto Environmental Clearances: CJI Says May 2025 SC Ruling Created “Unnecessary Uncertainty”

The First Medical Report and the opinion of the Medical Board recorded that the appellant was in the habit of smoking ten bidis per day. The Medical Review Board opined that continuous smoking constituted a risk factor for ischemic stroke and concluded that the disease was not attributable to service conditions. The appellant relied upon a prior judgment concerning disability assessed in a high-altitude posting, contending that the Medical Board’s opinion should not be accepted.

The Court recorded that the Tribunal had taken note of the applicable regulations and that “compensation cannot be awarded for any disablement or death arising from intemperance in the use of alcohol, ‘tobacco’ or drugs or sexually transmitted disease, as these are the matters within the member’s own control.”

Upon examining the medical material, the Bench observed that “having perused the First Medical Report and the opinion of the Medical Board, it would leave no manner of doubt in us that the disease of ‘Stroke Ischemic RT MCA TERRITORY’ was not attributable to service nor aggravated on account of service.”

The Court stated that “in both the reports, it was clearly indicated that the appellant was in the habit of smoking bidis that too ten bidis per day.” It further recorded that “it is trite position of medical law that an ischemic stroke occurs when a blood clot or fatty plaque (atherosclerosis) blocks an artery leading to brain, restricting oxygen which reduces blood flow and causing brain tissue damage.” The Court noted that “the medical opinion categorizing risk factors includes high blood pressure (hypertension), smoking, diabetes, high cholesterol, i.e., dyslipidemia, obesity and atrial fibrillation.”

The Bench recorded that “the Medical Review Board has clearly opined that on account of continuous smoking, the disease of ‘Stroke Ischemic RT MCA TERRITORY’ attributable to the appellant could have occasioned and as such Medical Board has concluded that it is neither attributable to service nor aggravated due to service conditions.”

Distinguishing the precedent cited, the Court stated that “the judgment of Bijender Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors… when perused would clearly show that it was a clear case where the appellant therein was working in Siachen Glacier which is high altitude posting… and the opinion rendered by the Medical Board… was not accepted by this Court.”

Also Read: Section 346(2) BNSS: Remand Beyond 15 Days Of Accused Already In Custody Not Per Se Illegal; Habeas Corpus Won’t Lie Unless Remand Order Patently Illegal Or Without Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court

On the present facts, the Bench observed that “the facts obtained in the present case is entirely different as noticed hereinabove and as such we find that the judgment and opinion of the Tribunal would not call for interference.”

The Court directed that “Civil Appeal stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Kaushal Yadav, AOR; Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Onkar Nath Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Ritul Tandon, Advocate; Ms. Naina Garg, Advocate; Ms. Priyanka, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Satya Darshi Sanjay, ASG; Mr. Shubh Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Shubham P. Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Khushal Kolwar, Advocate; Ms. Nikita Sethi, Advocate; Mr. Divyam Aggarwal, Advocate; Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR; Mr. Satya Jha, Advocate; Mr. Sudhakar Kulwant, Advocate; Mr. Praneet Pranav, Advocate; Mr. Raman Yadav, Advocate; Ms. Rekha Pandey, Advocate

Case Title: Sarevesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). 773/2024
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale