The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient evidence to establish that the death was due to Covid-19 related duty in order to claim insurance benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting Covid-19.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (rupees fifty lacs) to the petitioner under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting Covid-19 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Scheme”) issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India vide order dated 28.03.2020 and circulated to all Chief Secretaries of the State/Administrators of Union Territories vide D.O. No. Z-21020/16/2020-PH dated 30.03.2020. Further prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside the decision communicated through E-mail dated 04.09.2020 to the Nodal Officer, Jharkhand Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package Insurance Scheme, whereby it has been decided that the deceased husband of the petitioner does not fall under the category of insured persons envisaged to be covered under the aforesaid scheme and hence found ineligible for the benefit. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay her interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date the same was payable till the date of actual payment.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as District Accounts Manager on contract basis. At the time of death, he was posted at Garhwa. In view of Covid-19 pandemic, an order contained in memo no.850 dated 24.03.2020 was issued by Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Garhwa- respondent no.6, whereby the husband of the petitioner was deployed as Nodal Officer to take timely action with respect to payments towards expenditure incurred in operation of isolation ward and quarantine centre at Garhwa as well as for making arrangement of articles as per requirement after taking approval of the said respondent. The Union of India floated the said Scheme and circulated it to the Chief Secretaries of all the State/Administrators of Union Territories vide D.O. dated 30.03.2020. Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 27.05.2020 due to cardiac failure, while providing health care services to Covid-19 patients, and the death certificate was also issued to that effect. The petitioner raised claim for compensation on account of death of her husband under the said Scheme on 04.06.2020 in a prescribed format before the New India Assurance Company Limited-respondent no.7. On perusal of the details relating to “the scheme” available in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQ’s) on the website of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department of health and Family Welfare, Government of India, it appears that the Scheme covers loss of life due to Covid-19 and an accidental death on account of Covid-19 related duty. Further, the term of “accident” has also been defined as question no.2, according to which an accident is sudden unforeseen and involuntary event caused by external, visible and violent means.

3. It is further submitted that since the husband of the petitioner died on duty while he was providing health care services to Covid-19 patients, his case is fully covered under the said Scheme. The petitioner being the widow of the deceased contractual employee approached different authorities of the Government seeking redressal of grievance with respect to payment of insurance claimed under the said Scheme however, vide communication made through e-mail dated 04.09.2020 addressed to the Nodal Officer, Jharkhand, PMGKP Insurance Scheme, the petitioner was found ineligible for the benefit under the aforesaid insurance scheme on the ground that her husband died due to cardiac arrest, which was not an accident to be treated under coverage of the comprehensive personal accident insurance scheme. It was thus observed that the deceased- husband of the petitioner did not fall in the category of insured person envisaged to be covered under the said scheme.

4. It is also submitted that as per the said Scheme