Justice C. Kumarappan, Madras High Court
Relying On Death Certificate's Silence On Covid Is A Hyperbolic Defence: Madras High Court Directs FCI To Pay ₹15L Covid Death Compensation
|The Bench held that cardiac arrest recorded as immediate cause of death does not rule out an underlying Covid-19 link, where employee died weeks after being discharged while still Covid-positive.
The Madras High Court has held that a respondent's reliance on the absence of an explicit Covid-19 reference in a death certificate, to deny compensation under a Covid death scheme, is only a "hyperbolic defence" where the surrounding circumstances disclose no material ruling out a causal link between the infection and the death.
Allowing a writ petition filed by the daughters of a deceased Food Corporation of India labourer, the Court directed disbursal of Rs.15,00,000/- under the Corporation's Covid-19 compensation scheme, holding that a medical certificate recording "cardiac arrest" as the immediate cause of death could not by itself rule out an underlying Covid-19 link, particularly since the employee had been discharged from hospital while still Covid-positive and died within weeks of contracting the infection.
A Bench of Justice C. Kumarappan observed, “It is easier said than done to say that the petitioners’ father did not resume his further treatment. But, it is an unfortunate truth that inspite of the fact that Covid-19 infection continues, the petitioners’ father was discharged from the hospital. It was the time even influential person found it difficult to have an admission in the hospital. As a matter of fact, it was the situation to every one that ‘what could not be cured has to be endured’, which resulted in unfortunate death of the petitioners’ father. This Court is of the firm opinion that the defence of the respondent that the death certificate did not contain the death caused due to Covid is only a hyperbolic defence”.
Advocate S. Srinivasan appeared for the petitioners and Advocate M. Imthias appeared for the respondent.
The petitioners' father, an FCI labourer, tested positive for Covid-19 on May 31, 2021 during the pandemic's second wave and was admitted to the Corporation's accredited hospital. He was discharged on June 10, 2021 with instructions to remain in quarantine for a further 14 days, while his infection had admittedly not fully resolved. He rejoined duty on July 12, 2021 and died on July 15, 2021. The death report cited Covid-19 as the cause of death, though the attached medical certificate recorded the immediate cause as cardiac arrest. The petitioners represented to the Corporation on November 24, 2021 seeking compensation, which was not acted upon, leading to the present petition.
The Corporation opposed the claim, contending that its scheme covered only deaths arising directly out of Covid-19, that the employee had suffered only mild symptoms and had recovered before discharge, and that his failure to undergo the advised medical review could not be held against the respondents.
The petitioners relied on a Government of India Office Memorandum dated September 03, 2021, issued pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions in W.P. (Civil) Nos. 539 and 554 of 2021, which incorporated ICMR data indicating that 95% of Covid deaths occur within 25 days of a positive test, and guidelines treating any death within 30 days of testing positive, occurring outside hospital, as a Covid-19 death.
“…The medical records submitted by the petitioners shows the deceased unquenchable optimism to come out from the infection. But, he failed. Though the certificate given by the Doctor had stated the reason for death as a ‘cardiac arrest’, we should not loose sight that the petitioner while giving application to register death categorically mentioned that it was Covid death. Hence, this Court has impregnable reasons to believe that the death of the deceased was due to Covid. Navigating the above detailed facts, datas, events and the Government Circulars, more particularly the request made by the petitioners within two days of the death of their father, by referring that the cause of death was due to Covid-19 would compel this Court to explore the silence in the nature of infection, treatment and his sudden death within a short spam of time, that too while taking continuous treatment though not in the accredited hospital…”, the Bench said.
Taking judicial notice of the acute strain on the healthcare system during the second wave, the Court held that relying on the death certificate's silence on Covid to deny the claim amounted to no more than a hyperbolic defence, and that the death intervening within 45 days of the diagnosis, with no material ruling out Covid complications, warranted resolving the doubt in the beneficiary's favour, relying on the Supreme Court's rulings in Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer and others (2022) 16 SCC 343 and Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others (2025) 2 SCC 787 on liberal construction of beneficial legislation.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to sanction and disburse Rs.15,00,000/- to the petitioners within four weeks, with 6% interest to apply in case of delay, and no order as to costs.
Cause Title: J. Emima & Anr. v. Chairman cum Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:3525)
Appearances:
Petitioners: S. Srinivasan, Advocate.
Respondents: M. Imthias, Advocate.