Short answer. Yes, if three things are true: the incapacity existed at the time of the marriage, it still continues, and it appears to be incurable. A refusal to have relations is a different matter from an incapacity, and it does not fit this ground.
What the law says
(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable;
Family Code, Article 45 — Grounds for Annulment. Read the full provision →
Three conditions, all of which must hold
The clause is drafted as a set of cumulative requirements. The party must have been physically incapable of consummating the marriage, that incapacity must have existed at the time of the marriage, and it must be one that continues and appears to be incurable. A condition that arose after the wedding does not qualify, no matter how permanent it turns out to be. Nor does one that has since been treated, because the statute asks about the present state as well as the original one. Failing any single element defeats the ground.
Incapacity is not refusal
This is the distinction that decides most enquiries. The ground addresses an inability, something the spouse cannot do. A spouse who is able but unwilling, whether from aversion, resentment, religious conviction or attachment to someone else, is not physically incapable within the meaning of the clause. That situation may raise other issues in a marriage and may point towards a different remedy altogether, but it is not this one. Describing a refusal as an incapacity in a petition invites the case to collapse when the evidence is examined.
Note the words with the other
The statute speaks of incapacity to consummate with the other, not of incapacity in general. The impediment is measured against this particular union, so a condition specific to the relationship can satisfy the clause even if it would not exist with someone else. That phrasing also explains why the ground is not a judgment about a person's general health or worth. It asks a narrow question about whether this marriage could be consummated, and it asks it about the state of affairs at the wedding and now.
What proof this requires, and what it costs in privacy
Cases under this ground rest on medical evidence: examination findings, treatment records and an opinion on whether the condition existed at the relevant time and whether it appears incurable. That is intrusive, and it is worth knowing before filing rather than after. There is also a prescriptive period for bringing the action, so delay can end the matter independently of the merits. Speak to a lawyer early about both the evidentiary burden and the timetable, and take whatever medical records already exist to that first meeting.