State Cannot Be Spectator To Human Suffering: Patna High Court Says COVID Ex-Gratia Claim Cannot Be Rejected Over Hospital Record Error
The Patna HC has held that a genuine claim for ex-gratia compensation following a COVID-19 death cannot be rejected merely because of a discrepancy in the date recorded in a hospital laboratory report, particularly when the hospital itself has confirmed that the deceased tested positive for COVID-19.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar was hearing a writ petition filed by Shanti Devi, seeking ex-gratia compensation following the death of her husband, Ram Bhajan Choudhary, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The petitioner's husband was taken to the Emergency Ward of Nalanda Medical College and Hospital (NMCH), Patna, on 05.01.2022 with complaints of fever, cough and weakness for five days. He was examined at about 5:36 PM and advised an RT-PCR test before admission. His condition deteriorated and he died at about 6:20 PM the same evening.
The petitioner applied for ex-gratia compensation on 07.03.2022, submitting the stipulated documents, including the death certificate, COVID-19 positive report, family tree, bank details, Aadhaar cards and medical records. Her claim was placed in the Not Approved List by Memo No. 6568 dated 03.02.2023 on the ground that the laboratory report was dated 06.01.2022, whereas her husband had died on 05.01.2022.
The petitioner contended that the discrepancy was a clerical or data-entry error by the hospital. She relied upon the Emergency Outdoor Registration Slip, which recorded the sample reference as “RT-57779” before her husband's death. She also relied upon a letter dated 08.02.2024 issued by the Department of Microbiology, NMCH, which confirmed that Sample ID 57779, belonging to Ram Bhajan Choudhary, aged 68 years, was COVID-19 positive with a CT value of 21.3. The hospital record, however, showed the sample collection and testing date as 06.01.2022. The State submitted that the Three-Member Committee of the State Health Society had rejected the claim because the laboratory report was dated one day after the deceased's death.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India, which laid down the eligibility criteria for treating a death as a COVID-19 death for the purpose of ex-gratia assistance under Section 12(iii) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The Court noted that the criteria included cases where the deceased was diagnosed COVID-19 positive through an RT-PCR test and cases where the deceased was clinically determined to be a COVID-19 case by a treating physician while admitted in a hospital.
The Court found that the petitioner's claim had been rejected solely because of the date appearing in the laboratory record, without considering the Emergency Registration Slip, the hospital's subsequent confirmation of the positive result or the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court. The Court held:
“This Court finds that the rejection, being founded solely on the date variance in the hospital's record and without any of the eligibility criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar Bansal (supra) ... is unsustainable.”
It further observed that insisting upon the date of the laboratory entry, while excluding the contemporaneous hospital record of the sample reference and the hospital's own confirmation that the result was positive, ran contrary to the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court for treating a death as a COVID-19 death. The Court emphasised the State's obligations in a welfare State, observing:
“The State authorities cannot reject a genuine claim of a Covid-19 death merely on the technicality of a variance in the date entered in a hospital's record, particularly where the hospital itself has confirmed that the sample of the deceased tested positive.”
The Court added:
“The Constitution does not conceive the State as a distant spectator to human suffering, but as an active guardian of welfare and dignity.”
The authority concerned was accordingly directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim in light of the Emergency Registration Slip and the other relevant records. The Court further directed that if, upon reconsideration, the petitioner was found eligible, compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- under the applicable COVID-19 relief scheme, along with consequential ex-gratia benefits, should be released within four weeks thereafter.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dinkar Kumar, Advocate
For State Health Society: Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate; Ms. Kamya Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Kumar, AC to AG