ORDER
R.S. Garg, J.
1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the correctness, validity and propriety of the orders issued by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of Disability Pension, gratuity and other relevant statutory and pecuniary benefits.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Sepoy on 20-10-1986. Somewhere in November, 1989 he proceeded on leave for settlement of his engagement. Probably the engagement was materialised but suddenly, the petitioner, as alleged by the respondents suffered psychotic disorder and started thinking that the others were talking ill about his life, and all members of his family have turned ghosts. The petitioner, was brought to Military Hospital, Bhopal and was admitted on 20-11-1989 where he remained upto 22-11-89. He was shifted to Jabalpur Military Hospital where he stayed from 23-11-1989 to 7-12-1989. From 8-12-1989 to 2-1-1990 he was hospitalized at Military Hospital Jhansi. Between 3-1-1990 to 9-3-1990, he was treated again in Military Hospital, Bhopal, from 16-3-1990 till the date of Medical Report submitted by the invaliding Board, he remained in Military Hospital, Jabalpur. Finding that the petitioner was suffering with psychotic disorder known as Schizophrenia, the petitioner was ordered to be discharged from the services. The discharge order is available on record as Annexure-A. According to the petitioner, he was assured by the department that as he has suffered about 50% of the mental disability, according to para 173 of Pension Regulations 1961 for the Army, his case would be considered and he would be awarded disability pension. In fact, the case was referred for consideration but the higher officers found that the petitioner was a case of 20% disability but as the disability or the mental disorder was not attributable to the service conditions or environment he was not entitled to the disability pension. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the department. The said appeal was dismissed by the departmental authorities vide order dated 29-7-1992. The respondents picking up the threads say that the petitioner did prefer a second appeal against rejection of the disability pension which was rejected by the Union of India by order (Annexure-R/10) dated 29-10-1993.
3. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure- R/4, simply talks that the petitioner is a case of Schizophrenia but it does not say that the petitioner did not suffer mental disorder in the Military Services, therefore his case for grant of disability pension could not be rejected. According to him, his case is squarely covered by Regulation 173 and his entitlement for the pension could not be denied.
4. Smt. Nair, learned counsel for the respondents submits that from the report Annexure-R/4 and earlier report Annexure-R/3, it would clearly appear that the petitioner is a case of Schizophrenia and the said psychotic disorder has nothing to do with the working conditions, nor in absence of the evidence from the side of the petitioner, it can be held that the disability was attributable to or was aggravated by military service. Placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the matter of Rohini Prasad v. Union of India, 1995 MPLJ 268, it was contended that if it is not shown that the medical report is biased or mala fide nor there is anything on the record to show or suggest that the mental disorder was attributable to the military services then the disability pension cannot be allowed. Shri Tiwari in reply submits that from the document Annexure-B it would clearly appear that the petitioner was found fit for Civil Employment and as the petitioner was working as a clerk though designated as a Sepoy his services could not be terminated. In the alternative he submits that if present was a case of 50%/20% mental disability then his case could not be rejected.
5. In almost a similar situation, in the matter of Rohini Prasad (supra), this Court considering the case of Schizophrenia, observed that where the disorder, mental disorder or unfitness is found then a person would not be entitled to disability pension unless it is proved that the said disability was attributable to or aggravated by military service.
6. Schizophrenia, according to ‘Modi’ is a mental disorder. Earlier it was known as dementia precox. Later on it was found to be a term literally meaning disintegration of mind. The terms dementia proecox was changed because it implied that the disease always ended in dementia, which it did not. According to Modi, the cause of this illness is still not known but there is general agreement about the multiplicity of factors in its causation. Heredity plays a part in it. Many theories about its causation have been put forward from time to time but they have not stood the test of time. Auto-intoxication produced by a disordered secretion of the sex glands, atrophy of the sex glands and aplasia of the circulatory system, focal sepsis, endocrinal disturbances, disturbances of protein and carbohydrate metabolism of the brain cells have all been held responsible for the causation of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia in fact is the result of progressive maladaptation of the individual to environment. The most modern concepts of the etiology of schizophrenia are: Inborn defect in the metabolism of adrenalin or related compounds and deficiency of General Adaptation Syndrome of selye; biochemical ‘lesion’ in schizophrenia and search for an endotoxins of for multiple endotoxins produce through metabolic error, production of schizophrenia like symptoms by the administration of certain drugs like mescaline, d-lysergic acid, diethylamide, etc. According to Modi, the simple schizophrenia may develop in Hebephrenia or may lead to Katatonia. In Katatonia according to author, it is a condition in which periods of excitement alternate with states of Katatonic Stupor. The patient is in a state of wild excitement, is destructive, violent and abusive. He may impulsively assault anyone without the slightest provocation. Auditory hallucinations frequently occur which may be responsible for their violent behaviour. The phase may last from a few hours to a few days or weeks, followed by a stage of stupor. The Katatonic Stupor begins with a falling off in interest, lack of concentration and general apathy. The patient is negative, refuses to take food or medicines, and to carry out his daily routine activities like brushing his teeth, taking his bath or change his clothes. The activities are so very limited that he may confine himself in one place and assume one posture, however uncomfortable, for hours together without getting fatigued. His face is expressionless and his gaze vacant. Mannerisms and gestures are common. They will allow their limbs to be placed in any awkward positions which will be maintained indefinitely. They may understand clearly everything that is going on around them, and sometimes without warning, and without any apparent cause, attack any person standing nearby. In a case of paranoid schizophrenia, the patient feels that people are against him and are interested that he is ruined, he comes to believe that he must be a very important man. He entertains delusions of grandeur power and wealth, and generally conducts himself in a haughty and overbearing manner. The patient usually retains his memory and orientation and does not show signs of insanity until the conversation is directed to the particular type of delusion from which he is suffering.
7. According to Black’s Medical Dictionary at page 445, Schizophrenia is the collective name given to a group of conditions characterized during an acute episode by positive symptoms such as hallucinations, strange experiences and inability to think clearly. Such symptoms may lead to bizarre speech and behaviour. Acute episodes usually respond to treatment with medication, the phenothiazines being the class of drugs most commonly used. According to Black’s Medical Dictionary undue environmental stress can precipitate a relapse but he nowhere says that the environmental conditions may lead to such anxiety leading to schizophrenia.
8. I am required to refer to all this because learned counsel for the petitioner contended that because of the environment made available to the petitioner during the course of his services, he has suffered the disease. When the experts/authors say that because of some metabolic change or some inside mental disorder a patient splits his personality or becomes a psychotic disorder suffering with schizophrenia then unless contrary is proved by the legally admissible evidence, it cannot prima facie be held that the environmental conditions have led to the mental disorder of the man.
9. In the matter of Rohini Prasad (supra) this Court has observed that Schizophrenia is a type of mental illness and is a form of psychosis disease, which is more serious than other types of mental illness. In the said case also the question raised before the Court was that the petitioner did not suffers the said disease and the report of the medical board or the invaliding board could not be relied upon. In the present case barring for the arguments nothing has been placed on the record to show that petitioner did not suffer with any mental disorder specially schizophrenia. Referring to Annexure-F filed with the rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Chairman District Medical Board has certified that the petitioner was fit to join his duties, therefore it must be presumed that he did not suffer with any mental disorder. A careful consideration of Annexure-F would simply show that the doctor has examined him physically. He was never examined by a psychiatrist or by a psycho Expert. The report Annexure-F is absolutely silent about the mental condition of the petitioner or his mental fiber. If he was declared unfit on the ground that he was suffering with mental disease known as Schizophrenia and he was not accepting the said report or was challenging its correctness then the petitioner was duty bound to place on record some opinion of some expert recording a contrary opinion to the report of a military medical expert. It is not the case of the petitioner that the report of the invaliding Board or the Medical Expert was biased or mala fide. According to the petitioner, he is physically fit, therefore he could not be removed from the services and if he was mentally unfit he was entitled to disability pension.
10. Regulation 173 provides primary conditions for the grant of disability pension. According to Regulation 173, unless otherwise specifically provided, a disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalided from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20% or over. It further provides that the question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the rules in Appendix-II. The respondents have not rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he did not suffer a disability or he did not suffer the disability to the extent of 20%. They are denying the claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that disease was not due to stress and strain and was not attributable to military service.
11. A perusal of Annexure-R/3, would show that the petitioner was examined by the medical expert on 24-11-1989. According to the report and the history as suggested by the relatives and associates of the petitioner, he came on annual leave to his home for his engagement which was successful. According to the history, he was not in hurry to get married. The history shows that he had an extra affection towards his nephew and wanted him to join the military services but suffered a set back as said nephew ran away from the home. According to history, the patient started feeling that all others have turned into ghost and people were unnecessary talking about him. History shows that he had been consuming lot of alcohol and also had been smoking. He left alcohol suddenly about a month prior to the examination. In his physical report he appeared to be very tense and preoccupied with some thoughts. He kept staring at some spot most of the time and his attention was easily diverted. Response to questions was after a considerable time lag, most of the time he was inattentive. He was looking at various places and objects of the room. While speaking or during the course of the conversation he stopped abruptly and after some time started of his own or on prompting started from where he left off earlier conversation. Emotional tep lability and inappropriate display of emotions was also found. He started cry or laugh spontaneously. According to the doctor, the patient did not feel that there was any wrong with him. The patient was again examined by the invaliding Board and the invaliding board found that there was no family history of mental illness or suicide. The symptoms recorded by the Board were almost identical. It was found that he was preoccupied and there were symptoms of withdrawal. He lacked initiative and drives, disinterested in self and surrounding. At times remained restless and aggressive. He had ideas of reference and persecutory thoughts. He was talking irrelevantly and abusive. The insight that is the breach towards the thing was above board. Further investigations were made and he was treated with antipsychotic drugs and psychotherapy was also applied. His speech was found to be vague and irrelevant all times. He had auditory hallucination, idea of reference, derealisation, thought block emotional blunting interspersed with bouts of aggressive behaviour and hostility. The symptoms recorded in Annexures-R-3 and 4 would clearly show that the petitioner was a patient of mental disorder commonly known as schizophrenia. The question still is whether the petitioner was rightly relieved from the service and whether his case was rightly rejected and pension was rightly refused. As already observed above contrary to the reports of the medical experts nothing has been produced on the record to show or prove that the petitioner did not suffer with any mental disorder. The records would clearly show that for a long time he was treated in different hospitals for the mental disorder. Reports Annexure-R-3 and 4 shows that he suffered with schizophrenia. In absence of any material contrary to the medical report, it cannot be held that the petitioner did not suffer with any mental disorder. Any thought on the part of the petitioner that there is nothing wrong with him in these circumstances would justify the conclusion that he is suffering with schizophrenia.
12. The question for consideration now is whether the petitioner is entitled to the disability pension. Regulation 173, clearly provides that a disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalided from service on account of a disability. The requirement further is that such disability must be attributable to or aggravated by military service and the same is 20% or over. From the facts it is proved that the petitioner has suffered 20% disability. For application of Regulation 173, it must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the disability acquired by the petitioner in fact is attributable to or was aggravated by military service.
13. The respondents in their return have clearly stated that the petitioner was employed as clerk in the military service at peace stations. According to them the environment could not lead to Schizophrenia. They submit that if the mental disorder was not because of the service condition then the first part of Regulation 173 is not fulfilled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner was required to work over-time to complete the works he suffered a great stress and strain. According to him, this over-time, stress and strain has led to schizophrenia. In the opinion of this Court, looking to the experts opinion and the opinion of the authors on the subject it cannot be accepted. Opinion of the authors would mean that the work-stress or strain would not lead to schizophrenia. In fact the stress or strain of work may lead to some fatigue which would only be a temporary phase but it would not lead to schizophrenia. The petitioner would be again entitled to disability pension if he proves to the satisfaction of the Court that the disability aggravated because of the military service. Placing reliance upon Annexure-R/4, it was contended that whenever the medicines were administered to the patient the disability aggravated therefore while under the treatment if the disability aggravated the petitioner is entitled to the disability pension. In the opinion of this Court, the argument is misconceived and is based on misconstruction. Annexure-R/4 records that whenever the medicines were administered to the petitioner, the patient became aggressive when he was under active treatment with antipsychotic drugs and psychotherapy. If the patient was aggressive during the course of the treatment, it would not mean that the disability aggravated during the service.
14. In absence of any nexus between the disability and the service conditions Regulation 173 would not be applicable. It may be an unfortunate case but misplaced sympathy cannot be shown in favour of the petitioner because the same would lead to illegality. It is an unfortunate case that a person has been retired from the active service/military service because of schizophrenia and he unfortunately is not entitled to any disability pension.
15. After giving my complete devoted and absolute consideration, I find that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court. The petition deserves to and is accordingly dismissed. Security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner, after due verification.