Court directs State Health Society to reconsider ex gratia claim of deceased's family, emphasizing adherence to Supreme Court's eligibility criteria and condemning mechanical rejection on technical grounds
In a significant judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Alok Kumar, the Patna High Court has set aside the rejection of Covid-19 ex gratia compensation claim made by Shanti Devi, widow of Late Ram Bhajan Choudhary, who died during the second wave of the pandemic. The claim was initially rejected by a State Health Society's three-member committee solely on the ground that the RT-PCR lab report was dated a day after the date of death, a decision the court found "unsustainable" and "mechanical."
Late Ram Bhajan Choudhary was admitted to the emergency ward of Nalanda Medical College and Hospital (NMCH), Patna, on 5 January 2022, exhibiting symptoms consistent with Covid-19 such as fever, cough, and weakness. An RT-PCR test was advised, and the sample reference number was recorded on the emergency registration slip before his demise on the same day. Subsequent hospital records, including the RT-PCR register and a letter from the Department of Microbiology, confirmed the positive Covid-19 result with a Ct value of 21.3. However, the hospital's record showed the sample collection and testing date as 6 January 2022, causing the State's three-member committee to reject the compensation claim citing the lab report date postdating the death.
The petitioner contended that this discrepancy was a clerical error attributable to hospital staff and should not defeat her claim. Despite multiple appeals to district and appellate grievance authorities, the claim was repeatedly denied.
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's ruling in Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India (2021), which laid down clear eligibility criteria for Covid-19 death compensation under Section 12(iii) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. These criteria include deaths where the deceased was diagnosed positive through RT-PCR or clinically determined by a treating physician while admitted, even if the lab report date postdates death, provided other contemporaneous evidence supports the claim.
Rejecting the State's narrow interpretation, the court emphasized the constitutional duty of the State under Article 21 and the Disaster Management Act to ensure just relief to families of pandemic victims. It held that the State cannot reject genuine claims on mere technicalities, especially when hospital records affirm the positivity and the discrepancy appears to be a clerical error.
The Court quashed the rejection order and directed the State Health Society to reconsider the claim within four weeks, taking into account the emergency registration slip, RT-PCR records, hospital confirmation, and Supreme Court guidelines. If found eligible, the petitioner must be paid Rs. 4,00,000 as ex gratia compensation, along with consequential benefits, within four weeks thereafter.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that procedural technicalities must not override substantive justice, especially in public health crises, and reiterates the State's proactive role as a welfare guardian.
Bottom Line:
Covid-19 ex gratia compensation - Claim cannot be rejected merely because lab report date is shown after date of death when hospital records and RT-PCR register confirm positive result and Supreme Court criteria in Gaurav Kumar Bansal are not considered - Rejection quashed and reconsideration directed.
Statutory provision(s):
Disaster Management Act, 2005 Section 12(iii), Constitution of India, 1950 Article 14, Constitution of India, 1950 Article 21
Shanti Devi v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2995323
