Medical certification of COVID-19 death overrides technical requirement of negative RT-PCR for ex-gratia compensation.

The petitioners are the legal heirs of Dr. Ravinder Kumar Goel, an empanelled doctor at an Aam Aadmi Mohalla Clinic who died on 15.05.2021 after contracting COVID-19 while on duty

The petitioners sought compensation under the Delhi Government’s ‘Corona Warriors Martyr Scheme’ (CWMS) and the Union’s ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package’ (PMGKP)

While the GNCTD eventually released ₹60,00,000 under the CWMS following court interventions, the Union rejected the PMGKP claim on 07.10.2025.

The rejection was based on the absence of a positive RT-PCR report, which the Union deemed a "mandatory and non-relaxable" requirement, despite a Death Audit Committee (DAC) report certifying the cause of death as COVID-19

The Court applied the principle that technicalities should not frustrate the remedial purpose of compensation schemes

The Court relied on the Madras High Court decision in B. Varalakshmi v. Secretary to Govt. of India, noting the scientific fallibility of RT-PCR tests

The Court applied Section 3(b) of the Interest Act, 1978, which allows interest from the date of a written notice or entitlement to the date of institution

The Court applied Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the Court’s discretion to grant reasonable interest

The Court followed Union of India v. R. Padmanabhan, establishing that right to ex-gratia payment accrues upon determination by authorities

The Court followed Union of India v. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia regarding the liability to pay interest on withheld legal dues

The Court reasoned that the primary objective of requiring an RT-PCR test is to verify the genuineness of a claim; however, since RT-PCR tests are not always accurate, a certificate from a state-constituted Death Audit Committee (DAC) serves the same evidentiary purpose

Sticking to mechanical technicalities would defeat the purpose of the PMGKP

On the issue of interest, the Court noted that while ex-gratia payments are discretionary, they cannot be arbitrarily withheld once entitlement is established

Although the CPC does not strictly apply to writ proceedings, its principles allow the Court to grant interest at a reasonable rate (6% per annum) from the date the application was approved/entitlement was determined until the actual date of payment

The Court held that the respondents must pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation amount, calculated from the date the respective applications were approved until the date of actual payment

The matter was listed for compliance on 17.08.2026