SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Nishu Jain - Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 6834 of 2023
Decided On : 06-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harsh Khanna, Mr. Vivek Jain, Mr. Mahabir Singh, Mr. Nikhil Beniwal, Ms. Manisha Saroha, Ms. Aastha Tiwari, Ms. Tulasi Mukhi and Mr. Navish Bhati, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD.

IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of eligibility criteria for COVID-19 related deaths under the MCPASY Scheme and relevant guidelines, leading to the entitlement of the Petitioner to compensation.

Headnote:

MCPASY - Compensation Entitlement - MCPASY Scheme - [Mukhyamantri Covid-19 Pariwar Aarthik Sahayata Yojana] - [MCPASY Scheme] - [Summary of the MCPASY Scheme provisions and court's interpretation]

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner sought compensation under the MCPASY scheme for the death of her husband due to COVID-19. The Respondents denied the claim citing the death occurred beyond the stipulated time frame for eligibility under the scheme.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the husband of the Petitioner had contracted COVID-19, was admitted to the hospital, and ultimately passed away due to COVID-19 complications, as evidenced by the medical certificate of the cause of death issued by the hospital.

Issues: The main issue was the eligibility of the Petitioner for compensation under the MCPASY scheme due to the timing of her husband's death in relation to the scheme's provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the MCPASY Scheme provisions, guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, and Indian Council of Medical Research, and a judgment of the Apex Court to interpret the eligibility criteria for COVID-19 related deaths and concluded that the Petitioner was entitled to the compensation.

Final Decision: The court directed Respondent No.3 to release the ex-gratia payment under the MCPASY Scheme to the Petitioner within two weeks.

JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the Respondents to release the compensation for which the Petitioner is entitled to under the Mukhyamantri Covid-19 Pariwar Aarthik Sahayata Yojana (in short `MCPASY').

2. Material on record discloses that the husband of the Petitioner, Vikash Jain, contracted fever on 19.04.2021. It is stated that he tested negative in the RT PCR test. However, since there was no improvement in his fever, he underwent a CT scan of the chest on 22.04.2021 and his CTSS was 10/25.

3. It is stated that since the husband of the Petitioner had breathing difficulty, on 25.04.2021 he was admitted in the Sardar Patel COVID Care Centre (SPCC) at Radha Soami Satsang Beas, Chhatarpur, Delhi and was discharged at midnight on 26.04.2021. On 27.04.2021, he was admitted to the Pulse Hopital, Kotputli and was then taken to Eternal Hospital, Jaipur on 28.04.2021. It is stated that he tested positive for COVID-19 on 28.04.2021. He also underwent a second CT Scan of the chest and his CTSS was 25/25. It is stated that the husband of the Petitioner was admitted to Eternal Hospital, Jaipur on 28.04.2021 and he never recovered completely and passed away in the hospital on 19.06.2021.

4. It is stated that the Petitioner herein applied for grant of compensation under MCPASY scheme. The scheme provides for ex-gratia payment of Rs.50,000/- to the family of the deceased. Since the case of the Petitioner was not considered, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent No.3/SDM. The counter affidavit indicates that as per the death summary of the husband of the Petitioner, the cause of death was cardiac arrest. It is stated that as per the notification for grant of ex-gratia payment under the MCPASY Scheme, either the deceased's name should be in the list of COVID-19 death cases (MHA) or the death should be within one month of an RT PCR positive report which is to be certified by the Health Department.

6. It is stated that since the husband of the Petitioner was found positive on 28.04.2021 and his date of death 19.06.2021, i.e., beyond a period of one month, the Petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of the MCPASY Scheme. The husband of the Petitioner was first tested negative on 19.04.2021 and then positive on 28.04.201 and then finally negative on 06.05.2021, and, therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to the scheme.

7. Mr. Sunil Dalal, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, draws the attention to the death summary report issued by the Eternal Hospital and states that the husband of the Petitioner was admitted to hospital 25.04.2021 and he was never discharged from the hospital as he was suffering from the after effects of the COVID-19 and passed away in the hospital itself and the cause of death in the death summary has been shown as a consequence of COVID-19 because the husband of the Petitioner had contracted COVID-19 virus.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner also draws the attention of this Court to a Circular dated 25.09.2021 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Further, he draws the attention of this Court to the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and Indian Council of Medical Research which states, that in a COVID-19 case while admitting in the hospital (in patient facility), a patient who continued beyond 30 days and dies subsequently shall be treated as a COVID-19 death. He further points out to a Judgment dated 04.10.2021 passed by the Apex Court in Misc. Application No. 1120/2021 in W.P.(C) 539/2021, Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Apex Court had directed that, in a COVID-19 case, when admitted in hospital (in patient facility) and who continued for 30 days would be treated as a COVID-19 death.

9. Per contra, Mr. Satyakam, learned Counsel for GNCTD, states that the cause of death is cardiac arrest. He also states

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top