The Patna High Court has held that non-authorisation of the laboratory which conducted a Covid-19 test cannot, by itself, be treated as a ground to deny ex-gratia compensation under the Bihar Covid Sahayata Yojana, 2022. The Court observed that “nowhere in the said eligibility criteria does the accreditation, empanelment or authorisation status of the testing laboratory that conducted the RT-PCR/RAT test find mention as a disqualifying factor.”

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar was hearing a writ petition filed by eight petitioners seeking directions to the authorities to pay compensation of Rs. 4 lakh each under the Bihar Covid Sahayata Yojana, 2022, on account of the death of their family members during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The petitioners' family members had contracted Covid-19 during the second wave of the pandemic and died between 20.04.2021 and 20.05.2021 while undergoing treatment or home isolation in Mokama and Maranchi areas of Patna. The deaths were reflected in the serial list of Covid-19 deaths compiled and forwarded by the State Health Society, Bihar. The petitioners thereafter submitted representations before the authorities seeking release of compensation, supported by death certificates, medical prescriptions and bank statements.

The claims were rejected on the ground that the Covid-19 tests had been conducted at a laboratory situated at Mokama which was not formally authorised by the State Government for RT-PCR/RAT/TruNat testing.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the genuineness of the Covid-19 test reports and the fact that the petitioners' family members died due to Covid-19 had never been disputed by the authorities. It was argued that the claims were rejected only on the technical ground that the tests were conducted at a laboratory which was not formally notified or authorised by the State Government. The petitioners further submitted that similarly situated persons in C.W.J.C. No. 13671 of 2023, whose family members were tested at the same laboratory and whose claims were rejected on the same ground, were granted reconsideration and compensation was subsequently released. It was argued that denial of the same benefit to the present petitioners would violate the right to equality.

Opposing the petition, counsel for the State submitted that the claims had been examined by the District Committee headed by the Civil Surgeon, Patna and thereafter by the State-level three-member Committee constituted by the Executive Director, State Health Samiti, Bihar. It was submitted that the claims were rejected because the Covid-19 tests relied upon were conducted at a laboratory not authorised for RT-PCR/RAT/TruNat testing and therefore did not satisfy the prescribed eligibility criteria.

The Court examined the eligibility criteria for Covid-19 ex-gratia claims laid down by the Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India & Anr. The Court noted that the eligibility criteria included cases where the deceased was diagnosed Covid-19 positive through an RT-PCR/Molecular Test/RAT, or was clinically determined to be a Covid-19 case, and where the death occurred within the prescribed period after such diagnosis or clinical determination. The Court observed:

“It is significant to note that nowhere in the said eligibility criteria does the accreditation, empanelment or authorisation status of the testing laboratory that conducted the RT-PCR/RAT test find mention as a disqualifying factor.”

The Court held that the determining factors were the fact and timing of a positive Covid-19 diagnosis or clinical determination, supported by contemporaneous medical records, and not the administrative status of the laboratory which conducted the test. The Court relied upon its earlier decision in C.W.J.C. No. 13671 of 2023 (Sushila Devi & Manoj Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.), where it had considered whether a claim for ex-gratia compensation could be rejected merely because the Covid-19 test was conducted at a laboratory not formally notified or authorised by the State Government.

The Court observed that non-authorisation of the testing laboratory, by itself and without more, could not be treated as a ground of ineligibility where the fact of positive Covid-19 diagnosis was undisputed and the death otherwise satisfied the criteria laid down for Covid-19 deaths. It held:

“To hold otherwise would be to read into the Supreme Court's guidelines a disqualifying condition that the guidelines themselves do not contain, and would defeat the beneficial and welfare object underlying the ex-gratia scheme.”

Applying the above principles, the Court noted that the deaths of the petitioners' family members occurred during the second wave of Covid-19 and that their claims were supported by death certificates, medical prescriptions, bank statements and were reflected in the State Health Committee's list of Covid-19 deaths.

The Court observed that the claims were rejected solely because the Covid-19 tests were conducted at a laboratory not authorised for RT-PCR/RAT/TruNat testing. The Court held that the rejection was indistinguishable from the ground rejected in Sushila Devi and that the petitioners, being similarly situated, were entitled to parity of treatment.

The Court directed the authorities to reconsider the claims of all petitioners within four weeks. It further directed that if the petitioners were found eligible, the compensation under the Bihar Covid-19 Sahayata Yojana, 2022 along with consequential ex-gratia benefits be released within four weeks thereafter.

Case Title: Aneesh Singh and Ors v. State of Bihar and Ors

Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6457 of 2024

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Jainendra Kumar, Advocate.

For the State Health Society: Mr. K.K. Sinha, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Standing Counsel 18.

Click Here To Read/Download Order