Smt. Jayashree v Reddy Vs Government of India

W/O LATE VEERAPPA REDDY K M, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO 102, EAST BLOCK R J GARDENS, 17^TH 'E' CROSS, ESHWARA LAYOUT, INDIRANAGAR, 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 038.

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SHRI NAKUL VEERAPPA REDDY S/O LATE VEERAPPA REDDY K M, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO 102, EAST BLOCK R J GARDENS, 17^TH E CROSS ESHWARA LAYOUT, INDIRANAGAR, 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 038.

¶14

(BY SRI. ARAVIND M. NEGLUR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

AND:

¶17

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE REP BY JOINT SECRETARY AT ROOM NO 156, A WING NIRMAN BHAVAN NEW DELHI - 110 011.

¶18

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:2431 WP No. 2010 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AT ANAND RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶23

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 023.

¶24

THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., B -401, ANSAL CHAMBERS 1, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI - 110 066 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANGER.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS (BY MS. AMARAVATHI H.R. AGA FOR R2 AND R3; SRI. B. PRAMOD, CGC FOR R1 AND R4)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-3 REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS FOR PAYMENT OF THE COMPENSATION OF THE AMOUNT UNDER PRADHAN MANTHRI KARIB KALYAN PACKAGE ISSUANCE SCHEME FOR HEALTH WORKERS FIGHTING COVID-19 SCHEME ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Petitioners are the wife and son of one Dr.Veerappa

¶31

Reddy K.M.

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:2431 WP No. 2010 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The case of the petitioners is that said Dr.Veerappa

¶36

Reddy was practicing and serving as a Heart and Lungs Transplantation and Pediatric Cardiac Surgeon. He was working in Baba VIMS Speciality Hospital, Bengaluru. The said hospital was empanelled for the purpose of providing COVID-19 treatment. The said Dr.Veerappa Reddy passed away on 15.08.2020 during COVID-19 pandemic while rendering his services in the VIMS Hospital. That a scheme was formulated known and called as Pradhan Manthri Garib Kalyan Package, providing insurance scheme for health workers fighting for COVID-19. As he died while rendering services as a health worker fighting for COVID-19, fell within the said scheme. Accordingly petitioners being wife and son-Nakul Veerappa Reddy had made an application seeking compensation payable in terms of the aforesaid scheme, which came to be rejected by the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 31.07.2021 issued by the respondent No.3-Director of Department of Health and Family Welfare.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners taking this Court through the records submits that there is a prima facie evidence available on record to indicate that said Dr.Veerappa

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:2431 WP No. 2010 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Reddy indeed passed away while he was rendering his services as a health worker fighting COVID-19 pandemic. He points out to the document at Annexure-G, indicating Baba VIMS Speciality Hospital where said Dr.Veerappa Reddy had been working and had been empanelled on 16.11.2021. He also refers to the medical records produced at Annexure-J series indicating the details of the patients whom he had treated. Thus referring to these documents learned counsel for petitioners submits that there is no justification for the respondents to have rejected the claim made by the petitioners for grant of compensation under the said scheme. He also refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Arora and others Vs Director Health Department, Government of Maharashtra and others in Special Leave petition (C) No.16860/2021 disposed of on 11.12.2025 reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2773 in support of his contention.

¶41

In response learned AGA appearing for the respondent- state referring to an order dated 20.06.2020 passed by the respondent-State Government submits that certain conditions were imposed for empanelment of the

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2431 WP No. 2010 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

private hospitals under Suvarna Arogya Suraksha Trust, in terms of which, referral for empanelment of the hospitals would have to be made by a public authority, namely Commissioner of BBMP and the treatment protocol issued by the State Government from time to time were required to be followed. It is, only then the empanelled hospital will be paid appropriate package rate as per COVID-19 management. That said Veerappa Reddy, K. M., who stated to have passed away while rendering services as a health worker during COVID-19 pandemic is required to produce and prove the aforesaid requirements, only then will their application be considered. That in the instant case no such material is placed on record. Respondent No.3-Director of Department of Health and Family Welfare has rightly rejected the application as there was no evidence of Dr.Veerappa Reddy having participated in the COVID-19 pandemic as a health worker.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph 9 of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Arora supra , refers to frequently asked question No.14 and submits that if

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:2431 WP No. 2010 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

the documents required to substantiate the claim for the benefit under the scheme were furnished, which are eight in numbers, case of the petitioners would be considered. Since the petitioners have not furnished the said documents, the order passed by the respondent No.3 cannot be found fault with. Thus, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contending as above seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶49

Heard and perused the records.

¶50

Document produced at Annexure-G at page 27 and Annexure-R1 produced by respondent No.1 along with their counter-affidavit indicate that Baba VIMS hospital was indeed an empanelled hospital under SAST. It may be that the precise date of empanelment is not available as of now. But the fact remains that said hospital was indeed empanelled hospital. It is also not in dispute that said Dr.Veerappa Reddy was employed with said VIMS Hospital. The scheme, even as held by the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Arora (supra) is formulated only to provide benefits including payment of compensation to the health workers subject to claimants furnishing the proof and establishing the same.

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:2431 WP No. 2010 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Paragraph 30 of the said Judgment of the Apex Court

¶55

reads as under:

¶56

30. In view of the above, in partial modification of the judgment and order of the High Court, we declare that;

¶57

a) there is a requisition of services of doctors, and this is evident from the conjoint reading of provisions of the Act, the Maharashtra Prevention and Containment of Covid-19 Regulations 2020, the NMMC Order dated 31.03.2020, PMGKYPackage Scheme, explanatory communication to the PMGKY policy, and the FAQs released.

¶58

b) Individual claims for insurance made as per the PMGKYPackage will be considered and decided in accordance with the law and on the basis of the evidence. The onus to prove that a deceased lost his life while performing a COVID-19-related duty is on the claimant, and the same needs to be established on the basis of credible evidence.

¶59

The proof which is required to make a claim is found in

¶60

the answer to question No.14, extracted by the Apex Court at paragraph 9 of the Judgment which reads as under:

¶61

9. To provide further clarity on the eligibility of the beneficiaries under the PMGKY-Program, a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) was also released, elaborating on the coverage under the scheme, time duration, who should to pay the premium, procedure to follow, and the documents required to avail the benefits under the scheme. Answers to the FAQs make it clear that it PMGKY-Package covers a variety of private healthcare workers if their services were ‘requisitioned by States’. The relevant portion of the FAQs is extracted below:

¶62

“Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19 FAQ’s

¶63

Question 14: Documents required to claim benefits under this scheme? a. In case of Loss of life due to COVID19 following documents are required :

¶64

I. Claim form duly filled and signed by the nominee/claimant.

¶65

8 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:2431 WP No. 2010 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

II. Identity proof of Deceased (Certified copy)

¶69

III. Identity proof of the Claimant (Certified copy) IV. Proof of relationship between the Deceased and the Claimant (Certified copy)

¶70

V. Laboratory Report certifying having tested Positive for COVID-19 (in Original or Certified copy)

¶71

VI. Death summary by the Hospital where death occurred (in case death occurred in hospital) (Certified copy).

¶72

VII. Death Certificate (in Original)

¶73

VIII. Certificate by the Healthcare Institution/ organization/office that the deceased was an employee of /engaged by the institution and was deployed/drafted for care and may have come in direct contact of the COVID-19 patient. For community health care workers, the Certificate should be from Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre (PHC) that ASHA/ASHA Facilitator was drafted for work related to COVID-19.

¶74

(emphasis supplied)

¶75

The impugned order is passed by the respondent No.3

¶76

on the premise of petitioners not being able to establish that deceased Dr.Veerappa Reddy was working as a health worker and he died during his service treating the COVID-19 patients. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Arora as above and considering the prima facie material available on record, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order at Annexure-A and remit the matter to

¶77

respondent No.3 to reconsider the claim of the petitioners.

¶78

Accordingly following:

¶79

9 -

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:2431 WP No. 2010 of 2022

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

ORDER

¶83

Petition is allowed .

¶84

Impugned communication dated 31.07.2021 produced at (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.3 is hereby quashed.

¶85

Matter is remitted to respondent No.3 to reconsider the claim of the petitioners.

¶86

Petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh claim/application along with the documents as referred to in question No.14 extracted hereinabove. Such representations shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶87

Respondent No.3 upon submission of said application shall consider the same after hearing the petitioners in person and pass appropriate orders within an outer limit of sixty days thereafter.

¶88

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶89

SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Smt. Jayashree v. Reddy v Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jayashree v. Reddy v Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt P Uma Hemareddy Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri Renuka C @ Renuka Sharma @ Renuka Shastri Vs the State of Karnataka

Baldwin Boys High School Vs Karnataka State Commission

Sri. Kousar Ali Shaik Vs the Karnataka State Waqf Board

Sri. K.T. Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniraju Since Dead by His Lrs Smt. Lakshmamma Vs Sri H L Jayaramu