In a welfare state, the government cannot deny Covid-19 relief to families who lost their loved ones over mere technicalities, the Patna High Court has said, directing authorities to reconsider the compensation claims of eight petitioners whose family members died during the second wave and, if found eligible, release benefits under the Bihar Covid-19 Sahayata Yojana 2022.Justice Alok Kumar was hearing a plea by eight petitioners who had sought Rs 4 lakh each under the scheme after their family members contracted Covid-19 and died between April 20 and May 20, 2021, while under treatment or home isolation in the Mokama and Maranchi areas of Patna district.“It is important to reiterate that in a welfare state, the government has a binding constitutional and statutory duty under Article 21 and the Disaster Management Act, 2005, to act as an active guardian of public welfare, ensuring just and proper relief and financial compensation to citizens harmed or lost during national health crisis like Covid-19. The state authorities cannot reject claims simply on technicalities. The Constitution does not conceive the state as a distant spectator to human suffering, but as an active guardian of welfare and dignity,” the court said on September 2.The dispute arose after the authorities rejected the claims because the Covid-19 tests relied upon by the petitioners- Aneesh Singh, Geeta Devi, Madhuree Devi, Mani Bhushan Singh, Reema Kumari, Vishakhi Devi, Anant Kumar Sharma and Krishna Murari had been conducted at a laboratory in Mokama that was not formally authorised by the Bihar government for RT-PCR, RAT or TruNat testing. The petitioners argued that the genuineness of the test reports and the fact of their family members’ deaths due to Covid-19 had not been disputed. Justice Alok Kumar directed the authorities to reconsider the eight petitioners’ Covid-19 compensation claims. (Image enhanced using AI)Claims rejectedAccording to the order, the petitioners had submitted representations seeking compensation along with death certificates, medical prescriptions and bank statements. Their family members’ deaths were also reflected in the serial list of Covid-19 deaths compiled and forwarded by the State Health Society, Bihar.Advocate K K Sinha, appearing for the state, informed the court that the claims had been examined at two levels, first by a district committee headed by the civil surgeon, Patna, and then by a three-member state-level committee constituted by the executive director of the State Health Society, Bihar.The claims were rejected on February 3, 2023, and again after re-examination on July 18, 2024. The reason was that the Covid-19 tests had been conducted at a laboratory not authorised by the government for RT-PCR, RAT or TruNat testing. The state maintained that the committees had taken a considered decision after verifying the records.Story continues below this adSupreme Court guidelinesThe high court examined the Supreme Court‘s decision in Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs Union of India & Anr, concerning eligibility for ex-gratia assistance for Covid-19 deaths under Section 12(iii) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.The Supreme Court had considered guidelines dated September 3 and September 11, 2021, issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare/ICMR and the National Disaster Management Authority respectively. The guidelines set out circumstances in which a death could qualify as a Covid-19 death for the purpose of ex-gratia assistance.The high court noted that the criteria included cases where the deceased had tested positive through an RT-PCR, molecular test or RAT, or had been clinically determined to be a Covid-19 case by a treating physician while admitted to a hospital or inpatient facility.The criteria also covered deaths within 30 days of a positive test or clinical determination, certain cases involving continued hospitalisation beyond 30 days, deaths certified as Covid-19-related through the prescribed medical certificate of cause of death, and suicide within 30 days of a positive Covid-19 diagnosis. The high court said that the eligibility criteria did not mention the accreditation, empanelment or authorisation status of the testing laboratory as a disqualifying factor.Story continues below this ad“The touchstone remains the fact and timing of a positive diagnosis or clinical determination, corroborated by contemporaneous medical records, and not the administrative status of the laboratory that generated the report,” the court said.Earlier ruling on Mokama laboratoryThe court also relied on its earlier decision in Sushila Devi & Manoj Kumar vs State of Bihar & Ors, which involved the same issue.In that case, the court considered whether a Covid-19 compensation claim could be rejected merely because the test was conducted at a laboratory not formally notified or authorised by the state.The court noted that no laboratory in Mokama, Patna, stood authorised by the state government and that patients during the height of the pandemic could not reasonably have been expected to first check a government website for an authorised laboratory and then travel to it, given the constraints of time, transport and access.Applying that reasoning, the high court held that non-authorisation of a testing laboratory, “by itself and without more”, could not be treated as a ground of ineligibility where the positive Covid-19 diagnosis or clinical determination was not disputed and the death otherwise satisfied the criteria laid down in Gaurav Kumar Bansal.Story continues below this adThe court said treating laboratory authorisation as an additional disqualifying condition would effectively introduce a requirement that was not contained in the Supreme Court‘s guidelines and would defeat the beneficial and welfare object of the ex-gratia scheme.Noting that the eight deaths were recorded in the State Health Committee’s own serial list of Covid-19 deaths at serial numbers 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 23, 24 and 37, the court said that the claims had been rejected on the singular ground that the Covid-19 tests had been conducted at a laboratory not authorised for the relevant testing.It directed the concerned authority to reconsider all eight claims within four weeks from the date of receipt or production of a certified copy of the order.