COVID-19 ex gratia claims cannot be rejected solely due to a hospital-record date discrepancy.

The petitioner’s husband died in the emergency ward of Nalanda Medical College and Hospital (NMCH) on 5 January 2022, after presenting with fever, cough and weakness. An Emergency Outdoor Registration Slip recorded an RT-PCR reference number before his death. NMCH later confirmed that the corresponding sample, identified as Sample ID 57779, had tested positive, although its records stated that the sample was collected and tested on 6 January 2022.

The petitioner’s application for ex gratia compensation was rejected by the State Health Society’s Three-Member Committee solely because the laboratory report was dated after the date of death. She challenged that rejection under Article 226.

Whether the Committee’s rejection of the petitioner’s claim solely on the basis that the laboratory report post-dated the death was sustainable, despite the contemporaneous hospital record and NMCH’s confirmation of a positive result.

Whether the claim was required to be reconsidered under the Covid-19 death eligibility criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India.

The Court applied Section 12(iii) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, concerning ex gratia assistance, and the Covid-19 death eligibility criteria discussed in Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India & Anr., M.A. No. 1120 of 2021 in W.P. (C) No. 539 of 2021.

Those criteria include deaths where the deceased was diagnosed Covid-19 positive through an RT-PCR or other specified test, or was clinically determined to be a Covid-19 case by a treating physician while admitted to a hospital; the order also addresses deaths within thirty days of diagnosis or clinical determination and specified related circumstances.

The Court further referred to Article 21 and the State’s welfare obligations in the context of relief for Covid-19 deaths.

The Committee relied exclusively on the date entered in the laboratory record and did not consider the Emergency Outdoor Registration Slip, which recorded the sample reference before the deceased’s death, or NMCH’s confirmation that the corresponding sample had tested positive.

The Court held that this date discrepancy, without assessment under the Gaurav Kumar Bansal eligibility criteria, could not sustain the rejection. It also observed that the discrepancy appeared to arise from a hospital record entry and should not, by itself, defeat the claim.

If the petitioner is found eligible, the authority must pay Rs. 4,00,000 and any consequential ex gratia benefits within four weeks thereafter. The writ petition was allowed.