COVID Ex-Gratia Can’t Be Denied Over the Lab’s Status: Patna High Court Orders Fresh Look at Families’ Claims

Case at a Glance

Eight families whose relatives died of COVID-19 in the second wave had their ex-gratia claims rejected only because the tests were done at a Mokama laboratory not authorised by the government. The Patna High Court held that such a rejection, founded solely on the administrative status of the laboratory, cannot stand when the positive diagnosis and death are undisputed, and directed reconsideration within four weeks.

The petitioners’ relatives contracted COVID-19 during the second wave and died between 20 April and 20 May 2021, in treatment or home isolation. Their deaths appear in the State Health Society’s line list of COVID-19 deaths. Their claims under the Bihar Covid Sahayata Yojana 2022 were rejected by a district committee and, on re-examination, by a state-level committee.

The only ground was that the tests were done at a laboratory in Mokama not authorised for RT-PCR, RAT or TruNat testing. The petitioners pointed out that the same laboratory had been involved in an earlier case, Sushila Devi (CWJC No. 13671 of 2023), where relief was granted, and claimed parity. The State said a two-tier expert review had been done and the Court should not reassess facts.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can a COVID-19 ex-gratia claim be rejected solely because the test was done at a laboratory not formally authorised by the government?

The Supreme Court’s Criteria and the Rule of Parity

The Court relied on Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India, in which the Supreme Court applied the MoHFW/ICMR and NDMA guidelines of September 2021 under Section 12(iii) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 to define deaths eligible for ex-gratia. Eligibility turns on a positive test or clinical diagnosis and the timing and circumstances of death; the Court held that “the touchstone remains the fact and timing of a positive diagnosis or clinical determination”, and that laboratory accreditation is not a disqualifying factor.

Following Sushila Devi, the Court held that the rejection, “being founded solely on the administrative status of the testing laboratory”, was indistinguishable from the ground already rejected in that case, so the petitioners were entitled to parity. It observed that “The state authorities cannot reject claims simply on technicalities”, invoking Article 21 and the State’s welfare duty under the Disaster Management Act.

What the Court Actually Held

• Non-authorisation of a laboratory, by itself, cannot defeat eligibility where the positive diagnosis is undisputed and the death meets the criteria.
• The petitioners were entitled to parity with Sushila Devi.
• The authority must reconsider all the claims within four weeks of receiving or production of a certified copy of the order.
• If found eligible, compensation and consequential ex-gratia benefits must be released within a further four weeks.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It helps families still pursuing COVID-19 ex-gratia claims years after the second wave.
• It applies the Supreme Court’s eligibility criteria over administrative technicalities.
• It reinforces equal treatment of similarly placed claimants.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Claimants

• Show inclusion in the official COVID death line list and the test report.
• Cite earlier orders granting relief to similarly placed claimants.

For Authorities

• Assess claims against the Gaurav Kumar Bansal criteria, not the lab’s administrative status.
• Record reasons on each eligibility condition when rejecting a claim.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. It directed reconsideration and payment if the claimants are found eligible; it did not rule on the amount claimed.

Only because the tests were done at a laboratory not authorised by the government.

Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India, which applied the MoHFW/ICMR and NDMA guidelines on eligible COVID-19 deaths.

Conclusion