Feel free to contribute on burning issues concerning the armed forces. Contributions would be acknowledged - Use the 'Comments' tab or email navdeepsingh.india[at]gmail.com. No operational/business/commercial matters to be discussed please. Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained. Information on this blog is opinion based and is neither official nor in the form of an advice. This is a pro bono online journal in public service related to issues, policies and benefits, and the idea behind it is to educate and not to create controversy or to incite. Be soft in your language, respect Copyrights.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Disabled Generals and the Truth!

The media reported a letter written by a former Director General of Armed Forces Medical Services on the subject of disability benefits to officers of the rank of Major General and above. Though the media reported the issue objectively without taking sides, the mere existence of such a letter causes concern and also paints an untrue picture of the entire military establishment besides causing fissures between various ranks. I have penned a detailed opinion piece on the subject which appears in Swarajya Magazine :

DISABLED GENERALS AND THE TRUTH

Navdeep Singh

It was bewildering to see the circulation of a letter purportedly written in 2014 by the then Director General Armed Forces Medical Services (DGAFMS) to the Defence Secretary insinuating that Generals of the Army were wrongly claiming disability benefits for personal gain. Of course it got wide coverage, and amongst others, the following points were raised in the said communication:

  • Generals present themselves with disabilities at the fag end of their careers and doctors working in hospitals under their command find themselves constrained to oblige “these officers”.
  • The provision of post-discharge claims is being misused for claiming benefits for disabilities such as corns, eczema and hearing loss.
  • That Generals should be examined at a central place and not in establishments under their command.
  • That disability pension claims should be decided two years prior to retirement and tax benefits should be abrogated.
  • Concept of a disability arising in a peace area or field should be done away with and any disability occurring in any area should be taken as connected with service and entitling a person to disability benefits. 

 One by one, let me attempt to clear this muddle:

Generals presenting themselves with disabilities at the fag end of their careers and doctors obliging them

The DGAFMS should have known that medical science is not mathematics wherein disabilities can be controlled or planned. Generals retire at the age of 58 onwards and the likelihood of incurring certain disabilities is higher at such an age profile and merely because a person attains a higher rank cannot be considered a disqualification from flow of benefits entitled under the rules. The rules do not discriminate between a Sepoy or a General and even this author is personally aware of many instances wherein senior officers developed diseases towards retirement, including Coronary Heart Disease, Ischemic Heart Disease necessitating angioplasty and even open heart surgery, and also back problems. So is the DGAFMS implying that a senior rank shields a person from disease? It should be absolutely clear that unless it is shown that a person has feigned a disability (used to happen in the times of yore when diagnostic tools were not advanced- with hearing loss and backache being the most commonly faked disabilities which could not be objectively discerned), there is no question of discriminating a person based on rank. Interestingly much water has flown from the date this letter was written by the DGAFMS and which factum has not been reported by any of the media houses and this very issue had been duly deliberated upon by a Committee of Experts constituted on the directions of the Raksha Mantri, of which this author too was Member and which recorded its conclusion on this subject in the following words:
“…The Committee notes that the rank of a claimant is immaterial for claiming disability pension if admissible under the rules, however cases of feigning disabilities where none exist should be dealt with strongly and medical boards should also be extra careful in examining cases where individuals have reported with a medical condition just before retirement.”

Hence, instead of scandalizing the issue out of proportion, the DGAFMS could have simply written to all medical authorities to exercise due care. Moreover, if medical boards, in the opinion of the DGAFMS, were being pressurized by senior officers, then the fault lies with those medical boards which are under the overall command of the DGAFMS for being so fickle. Also, if the DGAFMS felt that officers were declaring themselves fit during the most part of their careers and disclosing their disabilities just before retirement, then it is again the fault of the annual and periodic medical boards for not being able to identify disabilities and lowering the medical categorization of officers at the correct time. It was an issue that could have been resolved in-house and the Defence Secretary had nothing to do with this malaise, if any. Also, it is none of the concerns of the DGAFMS about the relationship between career advancement of officers and their disabilities and the medical board cannot go beyond certifying the disability and its connection with service.

Post-discharge claims for corns, eczema and hearing loss

This is a surprising averment. Firstly, the rules provide for the system of post-discharge claims for both civilians as well as defence retirees. Secondly, merely submitting such a claim does not result in grant of benefits and a proper medical board is still held to confirm whether the disability was such that could have had a basis in service but fully manifested itself after retirement and whether it had a service-connection or not, and the said exercise is to be conducted by the office of the DGAFMS itself through a proper medical board. Floating a claim by a General does not mean the automatic grant of such a benefit. Moreover, medical documents of the disability under consideration initiated during the course of service are always required to be produced for any such claim to be accepted. Regarding eczema and corns, it seems that the two medical conditions have been mentioned in the letter just for effect, and I would be surprised if any person after retirement has been granted disability benefits for these two disabilities at all, and in case true, then the number would be negligible and if this hunch of mine is correct then the argument of the then DGAFMS self-destructs. However, to add, if such instances are true, I agree that disability benefits for such minor ailments giving rise to no functional problems should not be considered after retirement. On the point of hearing loss, I think that the then DGAFMS should have been in a better position to understand that noise above 85-90 decibels is harmful to the ear and even a single gunshot over 140 decibels can damage the ear. The 5.56 shot of the standard issue infantry weapon produces a sound of over 150 decibels and there is no system of using hearing protection devices in the Indian Army. All troops of all ranks undertake regular firing practices all throughout their careers and hence cases of hearing loss should not have been broad-brushed in such a manner by the highest medical authority of the Armed Forces casually unless there was diagnostic evidence to prove that a particular General had faked his disability. The office of the DGAFMS should restrict itself to commenting whether a disability exists or not and if a person is faking a disability, it should raise the red flag, nothing more, nothing less.

That Generals should be examined at a central place and not under hospitals under them

Wonderful idea that should be acceptable to all stakeholders since it would reflect objectivity in the entire process and offset any conflict of interest. The letter of the DGAFMS should have limited itself to this aspect instead of casting aspersions on senior ranks of the defence services. Going a step further, medical boards could be held at hospitals of other services. For example, if a Major General of the Army is being examined, the board could be held at an Air Force establishment, and vice versa.

That disability pension claims should be decided two years prior to retirement and tax benefits should be abrogated

A ridiculous suggestion, to say the least, which unfortunately also shows the lack of knowledge of basic disability law by the highest medical authority. As per law, disability benefits are determined on the basis of Release and Invalidation Medical Boards at the time of release from service and the medical condition persisting at the time of severance from service, and not earlier. Also, why should a General be held responsible only because a disability emerges at the later stages of his career? While calling for abrogation of tax benefits, the then DGAFMS has transgressed all limits of his jurisdiction. What is he? The Chairperson of the Central Board of Direct Taxes? The Finance Secretary?

Concept of disability arising in a peace area or field should be done away with and any disability occurring in any area should be taken as connected with service entitling a person to disability benefits

Very pertinent suggestion and to support the DGAFMS I would forcefully state that this is already provided under the rules which prescribe that incurring of a disability in a peace or field area has no implication on disability benefits. However, there is a twist to this. Despite this rule and various High Courts and the Supreme Court adversely commenting upon the peace/field distinction perpetrated by military medical boards, it is the same office of the DGAFMS which has illegally, and in contravention of rules, issued personal and Demi Official letters to medical establishments asking them not to consider cases of certain disabilities arising in peace areas. The same office of the DGAFMS has also illegally omitted to reproduce the beneficial disability rules to the said effect while compiling its “Guide to Medical Officers, Military Pensions”. It is therefore ironic that after issuing illegal communications to its lower formations and also issuing guidelines contrary to rules, the senior most authority of the said office makes a somersault and talks of something that his own office is responsible for. In fact, this suggestion, though very much relevant and correct, is contrary to the first part of the DGAFMS’s communication to the Defence Secretary. The DGAFMS therefore is suggesting that though all disabilities incurred in service should (rightly) qualify for disability benefits, if the disabled officer happens to shoulder a heavier brass, he or she should be disentitled. It would have been in the fitness of things if all of us had rather been deeply concerned about the fact that defence personnel of all ranks are dying earlier than their civilian counterparts due to a deteriorating health profile and increase in stress and strain of service. In any case, the issue has been decided in detail by the High Courts and the Supreme Court, and any aberration suggested would not just be unethical but also contemptuous. The entire length and breadth of the matter has also been deliberated upon in much detail in Paragraph 2.2.1 of the ibid Committee of Experts which thrashed out the subject from all corners.  

To conclude, I would only say that the issue of disability benefits to our soldiers of all ranks is much too sensitive to be discussed without due background or with little knowledge and such matters which involve precious rights of our troops concerning their health, irrespective of their rank, cannot be held hostage to a short three page note which turns the entire law and practical realities upside down. Also, assuming that there had been a few undeserving cases or rotten apples, which could anyway be counted on our fingertips where disabilities were supposedly faked, though not quite an agreeable proposition, the responsibility of letting such disabilities pass rests squarely on the multiple medical boards which allowed the same to happen and then the medical authorities who approved them- all of whom function under the office of the DGAFMS.

The letter therefore clearly appears to have been written with a background, and dare I say it, with a foreground. It is yet another matter of concern that the subject that should have been addressed to the three Chiefs of the Defence Services was endorsed to the then Defence Secretary who had no role in the subject thereby providing a leverage to many elements within the system to inject further chaos in the matter.

12 comments:

Rajeev Dobhal said...

Dear Maj Navdeep,
Very good analysis. But can this be published in some mainstream newspaper - specially HT?
Timing of publishing such a report in HT looks michevious.
Best Regards
Col Rajeev Dobhal (Retd)

Bhupinder Rai said...

Very true Sir. These are Vibhishanas of our system.

Maj Lalit Kant Baghel said...

Dear Navdeep Sir, Can you clarify whether DISABILITY PENSION is TAXABLE ...?
Regards
Major LALIT KANT BAGHEL

Brig S C Arora (Retd) said...

Navdeep has analysed the content of letter written to Defence Secy. I wonder why this letter was written to Defence Secy and not to Chief of Army Staff. Also why such instances of wrong medical category not reported while DG Medical Services was in service. Was he not competent to take corrective actions ? And what was the need for such a letter now, when the issue is under consideration under 7CPC.
Notwithsatnding all above, I wish to complement Navdeep for a very logical and truthful analysis of all the wrong allegations in the letter.
Brig S C Arora (Retd)
October 19, 2016.

Col S K Sawhney (Retd) said...

Dear Maj Navdeep,

Excellent diagnosis and analysis. very well explained in simple language and terms. The letter under question does appear to have been initiated with some covert intention.

Best wishes,
Col S K Sawhney (Retd)

Anonymous said...

Maj Navdeep Singh's recent articles on Disability Pension, atleast four or five published during the last one or one and half month are informative. There is a need to piblish the same in TOI, which carries a lot of writings/news about disability pension. For a balanced report , it is essential to publish views of both sides including Maj Navdeep Singh"s writing on disability pension.

Anonymous said...

We are the only service where our own men try to push us down.What armed forces is expected to stand for is camaraderie.unfortunately, we take pleasure in putting each other down.This letter is a prime example.see the contrast in comparison with IAS/IPS etc. Vivek Rae,retired IAS was fighting for his cadre in the pay panel. in IAS and IPS, they never wash dirty linen in public and make a goddamned spectacle out of it like we do.yes, there are deep rooted rivalries there as well,but when it comes to things that affect their cadre in the long run,all of them stand together,,,,

Manohar AM said...

Sir,
You brought out all points in a lucid way. But you shied away from a truth that is more important. I am sorry to bring it up in these columns this clumsy truth out. We do have our share of black sheep in our senior officers (free riders) who claimed disabilities and got undue advantage at the fag end of their service with their influence on the medical fraternity. It is common in peace/field formations to see even the junior medical specialist in the unit parties during the ACR period to gain better SHAPE for those in promotion zones. On the contrary before retirement all of sudden these very officers court a lower SHAPE. This type of corruption is encouraged both by the unit commanders and the medical officials at all levels. Why can't we accept this white truth. A Jawan doesn't have this privilege as we all know. So he is clean as on date. True, statistically, there is higher probability of incurring disability by officers who serve longer than jawans. Then why are we claiming OROP with a plea that these senior officers too retire earlier? Will the senior officers for-go the OROP scales of pensions? Just because the IAS/IPS officers are on wrong path with their liberal doses of NFU and higher DPs, we should not go wrong by asking parity with them ignoring the junior lot. Justice must be for those voiceless juniors officers, the JCOs and the PBOR who retire earlier than the senior officers; be it a slab system or a percentage of the pension. If you find that this comment is not fit for publication, do ignore it by not publishing.

tejee said...

Transparency must be ensured in all such cases and I agree with the views of the former ADGMS apprehensions, though penning only after retirement is a moot point. The malice must end any which way

karunakaran a ex havildar said...

I do not find any logic in discriminating in the award of disability pension, why there is glaring variation between officers and other ranks

when disease attacks or contracted on account of battle related incident , natural calamity given amputation or work stress and strain, it equally and evenly embraces body of the human being regardless of rank and file, when disease does not differntiate

why the award is less or more

it is indeed against natural justice

I am not much knowledged or educated still i am able to comprehend something unusual

Shiv Rawat said...

Dear Brigadier,
This letter was written by then DGAFMS to secretary defence, because he is directly under MOD and not under Army Chief , as you seem to believe

Anonymous said...

Clarification required for applicability of ex gratia payment to soldier who died as a result of scrub typhus contracted while on duty.
Although the original Ministry of Personnel letter No 45/55/97-P&PW(C) DATED 11 September 1998 states that payment would be applicable to civil employees of central government who die as a result of disease contracted while in bona-fide duties,the clause about disease contracted not included in the MoD letter authorising the payment which is now enhanced to 25 lakh for accidents.
Please advise as to how can the same be claimed for the deceased soldier under the provision of the same letter?