Ex-gratia COVID compensation requires reliable proof establishing that the death occurred due to COVID-19.

The petitioner sought payment of ₹4,00,000 as ex-gratia compensation for the alleged death of his father from COVID-19.

The deceased was allegedly referred from Sadar Hospital, Chapra, to Sanskar Hospital, Bhagwan Bazar, Chapra, where diagnostic tests at private centres purportedly indicated severe coronavirus infection. He died on 7 May 2021, and the petitioner claimed that the hospital refused to issue a discharge certificate.

The petitioner submitted representations dated 12 June 2021, 15 June 2021, 3 October 2023 and 18 October 2023 to the concerned authorities.

His claim was rejected by the three-member District Enquiry Committee on 30 July 2021 because no RT-PCR, Antigen or TrueNat test had been conducted and the available material did not establish that the death was due to COVID-19.

The State also relied on the District Epidemiologist’s report, noting the absence of Sadar Hospital records, the silence of the private hospital prescription regarding COVID-19, and the Death Certificate’s recording of the place of death as the deceased’s residence.

Whether the petitioner established that his father’s death was caused by COVID-19 so as to qualify for the claimed ex-gratia compensation of ₹4,00,000?

Whether the respondents could reject the claim in the absence of an RT-PCR, Antigen or TrueNat report, or whether other reliable corroborative material was sufficient under the governing COVID-19 compensation principles?

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s claim by the District Enquiry Committee warranted interference under writ jurisdiction?

The Court relied on the principle stated by the Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3384, that the absence of a formal COVID-19 test report is not, by itself, conclusive and that ex-gratia assistance cannot be denied solely on a technical ground where other reliable documents establish eligibility.

However, the Court held that this principle presupposes reliable corroborative material demonstrating that the death occurred due to COVID-19. The claimant must establish that the deceased contracted COVID-19 through a relevant COVID-19 test report, COVID-19 death certificate, or other dependable supporting material.

The Court distinguished cases in which COVID-19-related death was undisputed and rejection was based only on a technical defect in the testing documentation.

In the present case, the foundational fact of COVID-19 infection itself remained unproved: no RT-PCR, Antigen or TrueNat test had been conducted; the treating hospital’s prescription did not record COVID-19 infection; and the Death Certificate stated that the death occurred at the deceased’s residence rather than at the hospital.

The private CT-scan report, without supporting medical or official records, was insufficient to establish COVID-19 infection or causation of death.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s protection against rejection on purely technical grounds did not assist the petitioner because the necessary corroborative evidence was absent.

The rejection by the District Enquiry Committee was therefore not shown to be unlawful or otherwise warranting judicial interference. The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and no ex-gratia payment was directed.