Facts
The complainant, V., completed a health declaration for the OPA foundation on January 25, 2000, and denied the question about existing illnesses in the last 5 years. The lower court found that V. has been suffering from alcoholism for years and that this is an illness that has led to liver damage and complete disability. The lower court therefore decided that V. breached the notification obligation and that the OPA foundation was justified in withdrawing from the over-obligatory pension plan.
The complainant filed an appeal against this decision and argued that the lower court was based on a false concept of illness and that he understood illnesses to mean only events that had resulted in disability or required further therapeutic measures.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower court and confirmed the claim for a disability pension from additional insurance. The court found that the question about existing illnesses in the last 5 years on the OPA foundation's questionnaire was very comprehensive and broadly formulated, and that the complainant could in good faith only understand illnesses to mean health disorders that had led to non-short-term disabilities and absences from work.
The court further found that the complainant had only been treated for a health disorder once in the five years prior to completing the questionnaire…