Rajasthan High Court: In a case wherein the petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to set aside the order dated 24-01-2022, Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.*, set aside the impugned order passed by the Director, Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s application under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package Scheme, and release the claim amount in the petitioner’s favour within three months from 29-09-2023.
Background
The petitioner’s husband was a nursing officer engaged on contractual basis to render duty in Intensive Care Units (‘ICU’) of Covid-19 patients at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur (‘AIIMS, Jodhpur’) with effect from 13-12-2016. Thus, he came with direct contact with the Covid-19 patients, whereafter he did due to heart attack on 06-04-2021. On 23-04-2021, the death certificate was issued by the AIIMS, Jodhpur and the death summary of the deceased was prepared on 17-05-2021.
On 03-04-2020, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, issued a notification, whereby the authorities concerned were requested to inform all healthcare providers about their inclusion under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package Scheme (‘the Scheme’), which was an insurance scheme for health workers fighting Covid-19.
The present petitioner, deceased’s wife, filed a claim for the compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs under the said scheme. The Director, Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan vide order dated 24-01-2022 rejected the petitioner’s claim and stated that the documents submitted by the petitioner did not prove that the death of her husband was caused due to Covid-19 related duty or it was an accidental death.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that for the first time, in 2019-2020 the entire world came to know about the Covid-19 disease, whereafter it kept on spreading and adversely impacted the daily life of the people around the whole world. The Court observed that the country and the world were engulfed in extreme panic and fear of death that was lurking in the society, which almost resulted into the collapse of the health services.
The Court observed that in the wake of such petrifying and frightening situation, the health workers were continuously struggling at their respective places to provide the necessary medical facilities to the people infected by Covid-19. The Court further observed that the petitioner’s husband died due to a heart attack on account of Covid-19 related duty as health worker and in that period, he was deputed in ICU, where he came in direct contact with Covid-19 patients.
The Court observed that as per the notification dated 03-04-2020, following two types of claims were provided under the Scheme:
-
Claim Form 1- Personal Accident Insurance Claim Form for loss of life due to COVID 19;
-
Claim Form 2- Personal Accident Insurance Claim Form for accidental loss of life on account of COVID-19 related duty.
The Court opined that the present case, fell under the second category i.e., accidental loss of life on account of COVID-19 related duty. The Government’s intention was to provide financial assistance to the family of the health workers, who lost their lives due to Covid-19 related duties and also, to stop the collapse of the health services.
The Court opined that the word ‘accident’ had to be seen with the prism of Covid-19 and not in isolation as during pandemic, there was a sense of extreme panic, trauma and anxiety. The Court observed that when one person would get infected, the entire colony or the office would be closed down. In the living memory, this was the most trying times for the governance and in particular the health workers.
The Court opined that in the present case, it was not a regular disease that caused the death of the petitioner’s husband. He expired because of the heart attack at the age of thirty-six years and the trauma of ICU duties had definitely played an important role in causing his death.
The Court opined that the present case pertained to the policy of insuring the health worker in relation to Covid-19. The present claim before the Court was not an ordinary accidental claim, rather it was particularly related to the claim on risk to the health worker, who was working in a very fearful, stressful, and traumatic situation.
The Court opined that in the present case, the definition of ‘accident’ had to be drawn from the original intention behind introducing the scheme. The Court opined that, “in the ordinary circumstances, where a person meets with an accident, he or she is not voluntarily performing the task at hand with the risk to his or her life. In the present case, the performance of the given task was at aggravated risk of life, and thus, the Scheme was introduced to provide financial respite to the suffering family members of all the high-risk group of health workers, who were on the Covid-19 duties.”
The Court opined that the Scheme was not for ordinary road accident, rather it was meant for assuring the health worker that his or her family should be taken care of while discharging their duties, in the extreme environment of pandemic fear. The Scheme was an essential gesture for health worker in the trauma, while he had put his life to imminent risk.
Thus, the Court opined that the word ‘accident’ had to be connected to the extreme pain, fear and trauma of the Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner’s husband had made a supreme sacrifice to prevent the health system from collapsing and also, protecting ordinary citizens from suffering Covid 19 pandemic.
Thus, the Court opined that in such condition, the heart attack could not be taken to be voluntary or by chance. The Court opined that, “in ordinary circumstances, the insurance policies are governed by strict meaning rule, but at least in such disastrous and traumatic pandemic conditions, the policy is having a wider ambit of providing the relief to the person to which it was meant for, that is a voluntary health worker working in the ICU of AIIMS serving the Covid-19 patients and dying an unnatural death at the young age of thirty-six years without any other prevailing ailment or any medical or health condition, which could result into such untimely sad demise.”
Thus, the Court set aside the order dated 24-01-2022 passed by the Director, Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s application under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package Scheme, and release the claim amount in the petitioner’s favour within three months from 29-09-2023.
[Susheela v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 2722, decided on 29-09-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Lakshya Singh Udawat, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Mukesh Rajpurohit, Deputy Secretary General, Pankaj Sharma, AAG with Rishi Soni and Jagdish Vyas, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
