Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. The above cannot, however, be an absolute rule. There are various problems, which can be hereditary. There can be cases where a physical condition may not be noticed despite a thorough medical checkup. After all, genes also play an important role. The situations can arise where it may be found that the individual was working in normal conditions. He was not under any unusual strain or stress. The particular ailment was not attributable to the service conditions. In fact, the family history as subsequently discovered might clearly disclose that the ailment had been experienced by the parent/s or other members. It is hereditary. On consideration of such factors and the opinion of medical board, the authority may conclude that the disability was not attributable to the service.

34. Even if the delay in filing the petition is ignored, the factual position does not support the respondent. In the Writ Petition, it was claimed that the Sepoy had been posted in a terrorist affected area. The problem had started in the year 1987. Thus, he was sent on leave. However, in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit, the factual position has been explained. It has been pointed out that he had remained posted in peace stations. He had gone on annual leave from August 24, 1987 to October 28, 1987. The problem had started in September 1987. Before completion of the annual leave, he was admitted to the Military Hospital, Ambala Cantonment on October 27, 1987. Then, he was transferred to the Command Hospital, Chandigarh. He was given "specialist treatment by Military Hospitals". No affidavit was filed to controvert this factual position. In this situation, it is clear that the respondent had not given the facts correctly. In any event nothing was pointed out to show that her husband was ever posted at any place where he may have gone through an unusual stress or strain. In this situation, it cannot be said that the view taken by the medical board was perverse or that the appellants had not discharged the onus of proving that the disease was not attributable to military service.

72. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in accepting the claim of the respondents. Learned Counsel submitted that the respondent was working as a gunner in the Artillery. The visional dystrophy suffered by the respondent was clearly attributable to the service conditions.

73. A perusal of the averments in the counter-affidavit shows that the respondent had been serving in the Regiment of Artillery. He had served with 93 Field Regiment upto February 17, 1985. Then he was posted to 31 Air Observation Post. He had remained posted at different places. It was in the course of service that he had developed the eye trouble. Initially he was admitted in Military Hospital, Madras. Thereafter he was transferred to the Military Hospital, Secunderabad. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the eye problem was not attributable to the military service. In fact, it appears that the duties as gunner had caused the problem. Resultantly, the view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference. The appeal is dismissed.

75. The learned Single Judge found that the respondent had an exemplary career. In January 1988, he had been posted in Sri Lanka "as a member of the Indian Peace Keeping Force. He had remained there till July 1989. During this period, he had suffered serious injuries in a bomb blast. Thereafter, the physical problems had developed. In any case, the injuries had aggravated his mental condition. It was further found that there was no family history of any phychic problem. Thus, the claim of the respondent was upheld. The impugned orders were quashed. Hence this appeal.