Delhi High Court imposes costs of Rs 15,000 on woman IAF officer for misrepresenting facts to claim disability benefits

The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs 15,000 on a woman ex-Air Force officer for misrepresenting facts while claiming disability benefits after she was removed from service on medical grounds for suffering from seizures.

The officer had claimed that the seizure disorder which was the basis of her being invalided out of service developed after she had joined military service and, therefore, it could not constitute a ground to invalid her out of service.

“On seeing the record, we found that there was a specific entry by the medical specialist who examined the petitioner, to the effect that she had similar episodes in childhood. We, therefore, were of the view that the disorder could not be said to be one which had emerged after the petitioner had joined military service,” a Division Bench comprising Justice C. Harishankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed in their order of October 16.

The Bench was hearing a review petition filed by the officer against an earlier judgement of the same court dismissing the officer’s plea for disability pension.

She had been selected for Short Service Commission in the Education Branch of the Indian Air Force and her training commenced in July 2013 at the Air Force Academy, Dundigal. During training, she was admitted to the hospital after loss of consciousness.

In March 2014, she was transferred to Command Hospital, Bengaluru, for review and neurological opinion, where it was concluded that she was unfit to undergo the stress and strain of service.

A show-cause notice was issued in May 2014, informing her that she would be placed in low medical category for epilepsy and invalidated out of service on medical grounds. An Invalid Medical Board thereafter assessed her disability at 20 per cent for life, opining the disability to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. She suffered from the disability after completion of eight months of training.

She also sought sheltered appointment which was rejected by the authorities on the grounds that her disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. She also lodged an online grievance on the Public Grievance Portal for disability pension, which was also rejected, following which she moved the High Court.

“We regret our inability to grant relief in this case. Here, there is a subjective difference, in as much as the certificate of the doctor on the basis of which who had examined the petitioner specifically states that the petitioner had a history of episodes of seizure during childhood. As such, no fault can be found with the decision of the respondents in refusing to treat the seizure as attributable to or aggravated by military training,” the High Court had earlier ruled.

The Bench also took exception to the petitioner’s action of filing a review petition through a different counsel, saying that it was not proper for one counsel to argue the main writ petition and for another counsel to argue the review petition and that the Supreme Court has also critically commented on this aspect.

On the review petition, the Bench observed that the new counsel first submitted that there is no medical record to the effect that the petitioner had suffered similar episodes of seizures in childhood, which was obviously incorrect. Then the counsel tried to rely on certain submissions contained in respondents’ counter-affidavit and in the petitioner’s declarations at the pre-enrolment stage.

“We fail to understand how these can constitute a basis for us to disbelieve a medical record which specifically pertains to the petitioner. This review petition is, therefore, clearly an attempt at a second bite at the cherry, after changing counsel,” the Bench ruled.