Kuwait: Jasour – News Desk
The Civil Court of Cassation, presided over by Judge Dr. Obaid Al-Ajmi, confirmed that the Disability Authority Law No. 8 of 2010 regarding the rights of persons with disabilities stipulates the provision of in-kind benefits and monthly allowances for individuals with special needs, as their care is not an act of charity or pity, but rather a duty of everyone and an obligation of the state towards this important segment. The authority was ordered to pay the entitlements of a disabled citizen.
In its prominent ruling, the court stated that the authority is required to suspend financial allowances in two cases: in the event of the individual’s recovery or if the condition no longer applies. It is not permissible for the administration to exceed this matter or violate the provisions of the law.
The lawsuit, filed by a citizen against the Disability Authority, demanded the payment of over 12,000 dinars that the authority had refused to disburse to the plaintiff’s daughter, despite her still suffering from a double intellectual and physical disability, thus obligating the authority to pay.
The statement explained that his daughter has had a moderate disability since birth and was issued a certificate by the General Authority for Persons with Disabilities. When the law was enacted in May 2010 and the disability allowances were being disbursed, he was surprised by the suspension of payments for the period in question. The lawsuit was filed, and the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the Court of Appeal overturned the first-degree ruling and rejected the lawsuit. The plaintiff argued that the ruling violated the law, erred in its application and interpretation, and was flawed in reasoning and contrary to the documents.
In his statement, he said that the contested ruling rejected the lawsuit for not having his daughter examined by the medical committee within three years, despite the medical committee of the General Authority for Persons with Disabilities previously issuing a disability certificate on 06/05/2014 confirming her permanent moderate double physical and intellectual disability.
Hence, she acquired a legal status that should not be altered as long as her condition remained unchanged due to medical advances or otherwise, which was not the case, as her condition did not improve after the suspension of payments. Consequently, she is entitled to all the benefits that the authority ceased to disburse. The court emphasized that clear legal texts must be adhered to and not interpreted or altered.
The Court of Cassation stated that this argument is valid, as the law No. 8 of 2010 regarding the rights of persons with disabilities stipulates the provision of in-kind benefits and monthly allowances for individuals with special needs, emphasizing that their care is not charity or pity but a duty and obligation of the state towards this important segment.
The amended Article 29 of Law No. 101 of 2015 stipulates that these individuals are entitled to a monthly allowance until the age of twenty-one, and the payments continue for those in education until the age of twenty-eight, as well as a monthly allowance for women who care for severe disabilities and do not work.
The court explained that Article 26 of Decision No. 340 issuing the executive regulations of Law No. 8 of 2010 regarding the rights of persons with disabilities stipulates that the technical committee is responsible for, among other tasks, issuing medical reports, disability certificates, and reassessing disability cases periodically. The benefits may only be suspended in the event of recovery or if the condition no longer falls under the concept of disability.
The court concluded that since the plaintiff’s daughter still suffers from a permanent moderate double physical and intellectual disability, she is entitled to the allowances claimed. Therefore, the contested ruling, which rejected the lawsuit, is flawed due to legal misapplication, and the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The final judgment supported the initial decision, rejecting the appeal and affirming the plaintiff’s entitlement.
