SC Rules: Stroke from Smoking Not Grounds for Disability Pension

(Judicial Quest News Network)

Delhi,17, February,2026- In a ruling that underscores the boundaries of service‑related disability claims, the Supreme Court has dismissed the plea of a former Army personnel seeking disability compensation for a brain stroke, holding that the ailment was attributable to his personal habit of smoking and not to military service.

Court’s Observations

A Bench comprising Justice Arvind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which had rejected the claim after noting medical records clearly established that the appellant was in the habit of smoking around ten beedis a day.

“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.”

Referring to Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and Paragraph 6 of the Guide to Medical Officers, 2002, the Court emphasized that compensation cannot be awarded for any disability or death arising from:

• Intemperance in the use of alcohol, tobacco, or drugs
• Sexually transmitted diseases

These, the Court observed, are matters within the member’s own control and cannot be linked to service conditions.

“the appellant was in the habit of smoking bidis that too ten bidis per day and 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 and the medical opinion categorizing risk factors includes high blood pressure (hypertension), smoking, diabetes, high cholesterol, i.e., dyslipidaemia, obesity and atrial fibrillation. “Observed the Bench

Nature of the Disease

The appellant had suffered Stroke Ischemic RT MCA Territory, which the Court held was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Consequently, the condition did not warrant disability compensation under the governing pension regulations.

Distinguishing Precedent

The appellant had relied on the decision in Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2025), where the Supreme Court had declined to accept the Medical Board’s opinion that assessed disability of 15–19% as neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. In that case, the officer was serving at the Siachen Glacier, a high‑altitude posting with extreme conditions.

The Bench clarified that the present case involved no such circumstances. Unlike Bijender Singh, where service conditions played a direct role, here the disability was rooted in a personal lifestyle choice. Thus, the precedent was held inapplicable.

Judicial Significance

By reaffirming the principle that lifestyle‑induced ailments fall outside the ambit of service‑related disability, the Supreme Court has drawn a clear line between conditions aggravated by military duty and those arising from personal habits. The ruling reinforces the intent of Regulation 173 and the Medical Officers’ Guide, ensuring that disability pensions remain reserved for genuine service‑linked injuries or diseases.