Mumbai, Feb 04: Nearly five years after losing his only earning son during the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, a 63-year-old retired man continues his legal fight before the Bombay High Court, seeking answers over the circumstances of death and financial relief for his bereaved family.
HC hears plea questioning circumstances of death
A bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande, on January 29, heard a petition filed in 2021 by Ramashankar Shaligram Yadav. His son, Sunilkumar Yadav (41), died in May 2021 after being admitted to the BKC Jumbo Covid Centre.
The petitioner questioned the circumstances surrounding his son’s death and sought ex-gratia compensation and other government benefits meant for families of Covid-19 victims.
Claims of recovery before sudden death
Yadav stated that his son, a law graduate and the sole breadwinner of the family, was recovering and had even sent messages to family members about his improving health a day before his death on May 16, 2021. Sunilkumar had been admitted to the BKC Jumbo Covid Centre on May 2, 2021.
According to the petition, he was shifted without prior intimation from the BKC Covid Centre to Rajawadi Hospital, where he was declared dead shortly thereafter.
Allegations of record manipulation
The petitioner alleged manipulation of medical records and claimed that the death was not caused by Covid-19. He sought the appointment of a judicial committee to investigate deaths “allegedly caused under the guise of Covid”.
The plea further alleged that another patient at the BKC centre informed the family that Sunilkumar’s stomach and eyes were bandaged. The father claimed doctors failed to provide a logical explanation for the bandages, which were allegedly bloodstained.
Court sceptical about reopening cause of death
During the hearing, the bench expressed scepticism about reopening the cause of death after four to five years. The court noted that medical records, including test reports and hospital documents, were already on record and “clearly referred to the symptoms of the patient as that of Covid”.
The judges observed that an investigation at this stage “may not gain any fruitful result”.
Focus shifts to compensation claim
Following the court’s observations, the petitioner’s advocate Ajay Jaiswal restricted submissions to the issue of compensation. Citing Supreme Court directions, he submitted that the family was entitled to an ex-gratia payment of ₹50,000 under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, payable from the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF).
He also urged the court to direct authorities to extend benefits under other applicable welfare schemes, noting that the deceased left behind a wife and minor children.
Also Watch:
State assures review of ex-gratia payment
Government Pleader Poornima Kantharia assured the court that the grievance regarding non-payment of ex-gratia aid would be examined, stating that such payment is “automatic upon production of the death certificate”.
The High Court has kept the petition for further hearing on February 12.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
