Court holds that denial of compensation solely on grounds of unauthorised testing laboratories violates Supreme Court guidelines and constitutional duty of welfare; directs payment under Bihar Covid Sahayata Yojna 2022
In a significant ruling delivered on September 2, 2026, the Patna High Court under Justice Alok Kumar emphasized that Covid-19 ex-gratia compensation claims cannot be rejected merely because the Covid-19 test was conducted at laboratories not authorised by the State Government. The Court was hearing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6457 of 2024 filed by eight petitioners who lost family members during the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic and sought compensation under the Bihar Covid Sahayata Yojna 2022.
The petitioners' claims were rejected by state committees solely on the ground that the RT-PCR/RAT/TruNat tests were performed at a laboratory in Mokama which was not formally authorised for such tests by Bihar State. While the genuineness of the test reports and the fact of death due to Covid-19 were never disputed, the administrative status of the testing laboratory was the sole basis for denial of compensation.
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India which laid down clear eligibility criteria for Covid-19 ex-gratia assistance under Section 12(iii) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Notably, the Supreme Court guidelines do not disqualify claims based on whether the testing laboratory is authorised or not. The key factors are a positive Covid-19 diagnosis or clinical determination by a treating physician, death occurring within 30 days of diagnosis, or a Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (MCCD) stating Covid-19 as cause.
Further, the Patna High Court referred to its earlier ruling in Sushila Devi v. State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No.13671 of 2023), where it was held that in the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic, patients could not be expected to verify the authorisation status of laboratories before testing. The Court had ruled that technical administrative grounds should not defeat the welfare objective of compensation schemes.
Highlighting the State's constitutional duty under Article 21 to protect life and dignity, the Court observed that the government must act as an active guardian of public welfare during health crises and cannot reject deserving claims on mere technicalities. The Court underscored the principle of equality and directed that the petitioners be granted the same benefit as those in the earlier case with identical facts.
Accordingly, the Court ordered the concerned authority to reconsider the petitioners' claims within four weeks from the date of the order and if found eligible, to release the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 each under the Bihar Covid Sahayata Yojna 2022 along with any consequential benefits within another four weeks.
This judgment reinforces the humanitarian and welfare objectives underlying Covid-19 relief schemes and clarifies that administrative technicalities like laboratory authorisation status cannot override the eligibility criteria set by the Supreme Court or the State's constitutional obligations.
Bottom Line:
Covid-19 ex-gratia claims cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the RT-PCR/RAT/TruNat test was conducted at a laboratory not authorized by the State Government, provided the death satisfies the eligibility criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is supported by requisite documents.
Statutory provision(s):
Disaster Management Act, 2005 Section 12(iii), Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 Section 10, Bihar Covid Sahayata Yojna 2022
Aneesh Singh v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971708
