Allowed

Archana Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC3 Jan 2023CWJC/1283/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court issued a written order disposing of a writ petition seeking compensation for the death of a COVID-19 positive husband. The Court directed the District Magistrate to verify the claim based on the spirit of government announcements rather than rejecting it on technicalities regarding the specific testing report.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Magistrate to re-verify the claim within three weeks without technical impediments and for the Additional Chief Secretary to redress the claim if referred within two weeks.

Archana Kumari Vs The State of Bihar — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1283 of 2022

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Archana Kumari W/o Late Ritesh Ravi, Resident of Village - C/o Harekrishna Dubey Sadha, Hemnagar, P.S. - Chhapra Muffasil, District - Saran (Chhapra).

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Addl. Chief Secretary, Disaster Management Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The State Health Society, Sheikhpura, Patna through its Executive Director, State Health Society, Sheikhpura, Patna.

¶9

The District Health Society, through its Chairman, District Magistrate, Chhapra, Saran.

¶10

The Civil Surgeon - Cum - Chief Medical Officer, District - Chhapra (Saran).

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

======================================================

¶13

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam (AAG-12)

¶14

======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶16

3 03-01-2023

¶17

Matter relates to death of the husband of the petitioner during COVID-19 period. This Court vide order dated 12.12.2022 had directed the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra to re-enquire into the matter taking into consideration the prescription annexed as ‘Annexure-4’ relating to the examination of the husband of the petitioner at Sadar Hospital, Chapra which confirms that the husband of the petitioner was detected COVID-19 positive and the treatment was also administered by the team of doctors for the said purpose. Petitioner has referred to the CT scan report confirming the possibility of COVID-19 infection. RTPCR test could be

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.1283 of 2022(3) dt.03-01-2023 2/6

¶19

conducted because the husband of the petitioner died en-route while being taken for better treatment to Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna (P.M.C.H.). Several reports annexed with the writ petition suggest that the death had occurred due to COVID-19.

¶20

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has referred to Letter No. 739 duly issued by the State Health Committee, Bihar under the signature of one Manoj Kumar holding the post of Special Secretary-cumExecutive Director informing Director, AIIMS, IGIMS, Patna and all the Superintendent of medical colleges and hospital and the Civil Surgeon cum Member Secretary, District Health Society, Bihar. The said letter is reproduced hereunder:-

¶21

^^jkT; LokLF; lfefr] fcgkj

¶22

i=kad%& SHSB/GA/IDSP/46681/739

¶23

izs’kd]

¶24

eukst dqekj ¼Hkk0iz0ls0½

¶25

fo”ks’k lfpo] LokLF;&lg&dk;Zikyd funs”kd] jkT; LokLF; lfefr] fcgkj] iVukA

¶26

lsok esa]

¶27

1- funs”kd AIIMS, IGIMS iVukA

¶28

2- lHkh v/kh{kd] fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa vLirky] fcgkjA

¶29

3- lHkh flfoy ltZu&lg&lnL; lfpo] ftyk LokLF; lfefr] fcgkjA

¶30

iVuk] fnukad %&

¶31

fo’k; % dksfoM&19 ls gqbZ e`R;q ls lacaf/kr vkadM+ks ds lR;kiu ds laca/k esa A

¶32

izlax %& vij eq[; lfpo] LokLF; ds i=kad& 116(HS) fnukad& 18@05@2021

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.1283 of 2022(3) dt.03-01-2023 3/6

¶34

egk”k;]

¶35

mi;qZDr fo’k;d izklafxd i= ds }kjk dksfoM&19 laØe.k ls gks jgs eR;q ds lanHkZ esa lR;kiu izfrosnu Hkstus dk foLrr funs”k fn;k x;k gSA mDr i= esa fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; vLirkyksa ,oa ftyk ds vLiryksa (DCHC/CCC) Home Isolation/ Approved Private Hospital / Transit esa gks jgs eR;q ds lanHkZ esa xfBr f=&Lrjh; lfefr ds leh{kksijkar dksfoM&19 ls er O;fDr;ksa ds lR;kfir vkSj lgh vkadM+ksa rFkk foLrr izfrosnu layXu izi= esa jkT; LokLF; lfefr dks Hkstus dk funs”k gSA lkFk gh lHkh eR;q ds ekeyksa esa lacaf/kr e`R;q izek.k&i= dh izfr ,oa dksfoM&19 tk¡p fjiksVZ dh izfr vfuok;Z :i ls layXu djus dk Hkh funs”k fn;k x;k gSA

¶36

mi;qZDr ifjis{; esa funs”kd] AIIMS, IGIMS, lHkh v/kh{kd] fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa vLirky ,oa lHkh flfoy ltZu] fcgkj@lHkh ftyk dk;ZØe izca/kdksa ls vuqjks/k gS fd fnukad& 20@05@2021 rd dksfoM laØe.k ls e`r O;fDr;ksa ls lacaf/kr okafNr lR;kfir izfrosnu dh iBuh; izfr vuqyXud ds lkFk bZesy& [email protected], [email protected] ,oa [email protected] ij fnukad%& 24@05@2021 rd miyC/k djkuk lqfuf”pr djsa A rkfd le;&lhek ds v/khu vkids }kjk lefiZr izfrosnu dh leh{kk dj vxzsrj dkjZokbZ dh tk ldsA

¶37

fo”oklHkktu g0@& ¼eukst dqekj½**

¶38

Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the above letter, it is mandatory that the husband of the petitioner must have obtained RTPCR report from government approved private hospital or government hospital, therefore, her claim has been rejected.

¶39

Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to ‘Annexure-6’, Government resolution contained in Memo No. 01/ PRa Aa (COVID-19)-09/2021 dated

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.1283 of 2022(3) dt.03-01-2023 4/6

¶41

09.06.2021 which is reproduced hereunder:-

¶42

^^fcgkj ljdkj vkink izca/ku foHkkx

¶43

i= la[;k 01@izk0vk0 (COVID-19)-09/2021@----------@ vk0iz0] iVuk&23 fnukad

¶44

vf/klwpuk

¶45

dksfoM&19 ,d laØked chekjh gS rFkk blds dqizHkko ls dbZ O;fDr;ksa dh eR;q Hkh gks xbZ gSA dksfoM&19 laØe.k dh “kq:vkr ls gh fo”ks’k igy ds :i esa fcgkj jkT; esa dksfoM&19 laØe.k ls er O;fDr;ksa ds fudVre vkfJrksa dks eq[;ea=h jkgr dks’k ls #0 4-00 yk[k ¼pkj yk[k #i;s½ vuqxzg vuqnku ds :i esa rRijrkiwoZd Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gSA blds vkyksd esa 3737 e`r O;fDr;ksa ds vkfJrksa dks #0 4-00 yk[k ¼pkj yk[k #i;s½ dh nj ls Hkqxrku djus gsrq eq[;ea=h jkgr dks’k ls jkf”k nh tk pqdh gSA

¶46

2- Hkkjr ljdkj ds xg ea=ky; ¼vkink izca/ku izHkkx½ ds i= la[;k 33-04/2020-NDM-I, fnukad 14-03-2020 }kjk dksfoM& 19 egkekjh dks vf/klwfpr vkink esa “kkfey fd;k x;k gSA blfy, ;g fopkj fd;k x;k fd vc bldk Hkqxrku vkink izca/ku foHkkx ls djuk csgrj gksxkA mDr ds vkyksd esa fopkjksijkUr jkT; ljdkj us fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd mijksDr 3737 er O;fDr;ksa ds vfrfjDr jkT; ds fuoklh] ftudh e`R;q dksfoM&19 ls jkT; ds vUnj gks xbZ gS ;k fnukad 31-03-2022 rd gksxh] ds fudVre vkfJr dks vuqxzg vuqnku dh jkf”k ds :i esa #0 4-00 yk[k ¼pkj yk[k #i;s½ dh nj ls Hkqxrku gsrq LokLF; foHkkx dh vf/k;kpuk ds vkyksd esa vkink izca/ku foHkkx }kjk jkT; lalk/ku ls jkf”k miyC/k djk;h tk;sxhA

¶47

3- dksfoM&19 ds laØe.k ls e`r O;fDr;ksa ds fudVre vkfJr dks vuqxzg vuqnku dk Hkqxrku vkink izca/ku foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ds ekax la[;k&39 ds ^^ LFkkiuk ,oa izfrc) O;; 'kh"kZ 2245&02&101&0003&larIr ifjokjksa dks vuqxzg vuqnku dk Hkqxrku** en ls fd;k tk;sxkA

¶48

fcgkj ds jkT;iky ds vkns”k ls] g0@& ¼izR;; ve`r½ vij eq[; lfpo**

¶49

From bare perusal of the above two government Letter No. 739 and government resolution contained in Memo No. 01/ PRa Aa (COVID-19)-09/2021 dated 09.06.2021 it

¶50

Patna High Court CWJC No.1283 of 2022(3) dt.03-01-2023 5/6

¶51

appears that the State Government has come out with a policy in confirmity with the Central Government policy to compensate all the persons who were treated for COVID-19 and had died in course of treatment, their family should be compensated a sum of Rs. 4 lacs by the State Government and Rs. 50,000/- by the Central Government.

¶52

In spite of such clear cut condition laid down in the two government decisions, the claim of the petitioner, whose husband had died due to COVID-19 has been rejected on the flimsy ground that the petitioner could not made available RTPCR test positive report before the three member team. The reason given in for rejection is not acceptable in the given facts of the case. The petitioner has brought on record several prescription and the reports which were performed at government recognized centre and the husband of the petitioner was treated at Sadar Hospital, Saran at Chapra confirms the fact that the husband of the petitioner was treated for COVID-19 symptoms and ultimately while he was taken to P.M.C.H., Patna, he died enroute.

¶53

At this stage, District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra submitted that he will reconstitute a team of doctors at his level to confirm the report and will not go into technicality that the

¶54

Patna High Court CWJC No.1283 of 2022(3) dt.03-01-2023 6/6

¶55

RTPRC test has not been performed at Government approved laboratory. This Court appreciates the submission made by learned District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra and it is expected from him that the claim of the petitioner will be true spirit of the beneficial government announcement.

¶56

This Court directs the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra that he must not take any technical impediment. In case he needs any clarification then in that case he may refer the matter to the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department for considering the case of the petitioner for payment of compensation.

¶57

Such exercise must be carried out within three week by the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra. In case matter is referred by him to the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department in that case the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department is directed to redress the claim of the petitioner forthwith within a period of two weeks.

¶58

With above observation, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶59

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶60

Niraj/- U

Archana Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Sinha Vs The Union of India through the Secretary

Manju Srivastava Vs The State of Bihar

Pankaj Jain Vs The State of Bihar

Praveen Khatoon @ Praween Khatoon Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Shabir @ Md. Sabir Vs The State of Bihar

Surya Narayan Pandey Vs The State of Bihar