India, High Court of Delhi, 25 May 2022, W.P.(C) No. 308/2022
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Instance
Area
Further areas addressed
Outcome of the decision
General Summary
The Petitioner became a widow after the death of her husband who was a doctor. She requests the ex-gratia amount promised by the Government of NCT Delhi (GNCTD) to all Frontline Workers/ Doctors who died of COVID-19 while in service.
The case is based on the distinction between doctors and paramedic staff at various places for granting the COVID-19 ex-gratia amount by the government of Delhi. The Court stated that the distinction sought by the Government of NCT Delhi may not be justified. This is because doctors and other paramedic staff serving in even private hospital should also be covered under this government program. Orders were given to the government to take appropriate policy decisions as to what amount should be paid to the Petitioner. Thus, the petition is disposed of.
Facts of the case
The Petitioner is the widow of a doctor, who passed away during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, in June 2020. The Petitioner’s husband was serving at a local hospital and was on COVID-19 duty. The Petitioner has applied for the ex-gratia amount promised by the GNCTD to all frontline workers and doctors who died of COVID-19 while in service. The classification of doctors and paramedic staff for the granting of the COVID-19 ex-gratia amount by the government of Delhi was challenged by the Petitioner as well. Though an application for the same was made, the ex-gratia amount has not been received.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private individualDefendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
In so far as the aspect of payment of the ex-gratia amount to next of the kin of the deceased husband of the Petitioner is concerned, it is not in dispute that he was serving as a doctor and he died in the line of duty while treating COVID-19 patients during the first wave of the pandemic. He also suffered from COVID-19 which led to his demise. The status is that the Cabinet decision taken by the Government of NCT of Delhi provides for grant of ex-gratia relief to such like cases, only in respect of doctors and other paramedic staff serving in either Government hospitals or in other hospitals which were requisitioned by the GNCTD for the treatment of the COVID-19 patients. The late husband of the Petitioner was running a nursing home with less than 50 beds and such nursing homes were not requisitioned by the GNCTD. Though, the Petitioner’s husband died in the line of duty while serving COVID-19 patients during the first wave from COVID-19, his case is presently not covered by the Cabinet decision.
The Court held that prima facie it appears that the distinction sought to be drawn by the GNCTD may not be justified. This is because the doctors and other paramedic staff, serving in even private hospitals, which were requisitioned by the GNCTD are covered by the Cabinet decision. Only because some nursing homes were not requisitioned on account of their capacity, does not take away from the fact that the doctors and paramedic staff working at such nursing homes were also exposing themselves to the risk of contracting COVID-19 and suffering death on that account. The fact remains that the husband of the Petitioner was providing much-needed medical help to the COVID-19 patients without caring for his life, in a totally selfless manner.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court directed the government of NCT of Delhi to take a policy decision regarding what amount would be payable to the Petitioner. The decision is likely to be taken in the coming weeks by the Group of Ministers and the decision will be communicated to the Petitioner.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
General principle applied
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court stated that the distinction sought to be drawn by the Government of NCT of Delhi may not be justified because the classification was unreasonable. Also, the Court highlighted that at the peak of the pandemic during the first and the second wave, the small nursing homes were also providing the treatment for COVID-19 to thousands of residents of Delhi and if their numbers are put together, they may exceed the number of beds available in Government hospitals and hospitals which were requisitioned by the Government for treatment of COVID-19. Thus, the Court balanced the pandemic outbreak with that of the availability of doctors and services.
