HC Deb 01 February 1940 vol 356 cc1257-8
54. Mr. Stephen

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has now made inquiry why pension was refused to Mrs. Coull, 7, Rossie Terrace, Ferryden, Montrose; what special medical evidence his medical advisers had which enabled them to set aside the evidence of Dr. John C. Anderson, physician-superintendent of the Royal Asylum, Montrose, who had Mr. Coull under his care most of the time from May, 1920, until his death on 5th October, 1938, and who certified that there had been a continuous history in this case from time of war service until the man's death; and whether he will now reconsider his decision?

Sir W. Womersley

I wrote to the hon. Member explaining the position in this case on the 19th December. Mr. Coull was pensioned for a mental condition which was accepted as aggravated by his service in the Royal Naval Reserve. He died, 22 years later, at the age of 67, of heart trouble. The Ministry's specialist medical advisers were satisfied, in the light of the whole history of the case, that the heart condition was unconnected with the aggravation by service of the mental trouble in respect of which pension was awarded, and that death was due to the natural progress of a constitutional disorder. In the circumstances it was not possible to admit his widow's claim to pension.

Mrs. Coull exercised her right of appeal to the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal and was supported at the hearing by a representative of the British Legion who called the attention of the tribunal to the opinion of the superintendent of the Royal Asylum, Montrose, recorded in the Ministry's précis of the case. The appeal was disallowed and, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the decision of the tribunal is legal and final.

Mr. Stephen

Will the Minister answer the question as to what evidence these doctors had which enabled them to set aside the medical evidence of the well-trained doctor who had had the man under his care all the period?

Sir W. Womersley

When doctors disagree it is difficult for a layman to decide. All I can say is that my medical advisers were definitely of the opinion that death was not due to any aggravation of disability received during the war. Further, the appeal tribunal confirmed that decision.

Mr. Stephen

Is the Minister aware that his doctors never saw the man and that their advice should not be accepted against the advice of the doctor who saw the man? Will the hon. Gentleman set aside the prejudiced opinion of his medical advisers?

Sir W. Womersley

I cannot go beyond the decision of the tribunal.

Mr. Stephen

I give notice that I intend to raise this and another similar case on the Adjournment?