COVID-19 ex-gratia claims cannot be rejected solely because a positive test came from an unauthorised laboratory.

The petitioner sought ex gratia assistance following his mother Binda Devi’s death on 23 April 2021. She had tested positive for Covid-19 by Rapid Antigen Test (RAT) on 22 April 2021 at New National Media Lab and died the next day while in home isolation.

Her name appeared in the list of Covid-19 deaths forwarded by the Civil Surgeon to the State Health Society.

A Three-Member Committee rejected the claim because the RAT had been conducted at an unauthorised laboratory; that decision was communicated to the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged the rejection and sought ex gratia payment and interest.

1. Whether the petitioner’s claim for Covid-19 ex gratia assistance could be rejected solely because the positive RAT report was issued by an unauthorised laboratory.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on the claimed ex gratia amount.

The Court applied Section 12(iii) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, concerning ex gratia assistance, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India & Anr., which gave effect to the relevant Ministry of Health and Family Welfare/ICMR and National Disaster Management Authority guidelines.

Under the eligibility criteria identified by the Court, a Covid-19 death includes a case in which the deceased tested positive by RT-PCR, molecular test or RAT, or was clinically determined to be a Covid-19 case, and died within thirty days of the positive test or clinical determination, whether inside or outside a hospital.

The Court also referred to the State’s constitutional and statutory welfare responsibilities under Article 21 and the Disaster Management Act.

The rejection rested solely on the laboratory’s unauthorised status, without a finding that the RAT report was fabricated or any reference to the eligibility criteria in Gaurav Kumar Bansal.

The positive RAT and death one day later brought the claim within the criteria described by the Court, which did not make eligibility dependent on the laboratory’s authorisation.

The deceased’s inclusion in the Civil Surgeon’s Covid-19 death list further supported reconsideration of the claim.

The Court declined to grant interest because eligibility had not yet been determined and no liability to pay interest had accrued.

It directed the competent authority to reconsider the claim, having regard to the RAT report, death certificate and Gaurav Kumar Bansal criteria, within four weeks of receiving or being presented with a certified copy of the judgment.

If the petitioner is found eligible, the authority must pay ₹4,00,000, together with any consequential ex gratia benefits, within a further four weeks.

The prayer for 9% interest and costs was not granted; the question of interest was left to the authority to consider, if applicable, under the scheme and law.

The writ petition was allowed accordingly.