Covid-19: An overview of the laws applied

Disha Agarwal | ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad | 20th June 2020

With the outbreak of Covid-19 which has affected all the sectors throughout the world, it is important to have right medical assistance. One of the biggest public, social, health crisis is being faced by India and the entire world. For the country to deal with it, a proper framework at national and state level has to be established. Covid-19 pandemic has disastrous consequences on the law and order governing the country. It has been declared “notified disaster” under Disaster Management Act, 2005. With the help of this act, assistance is provided to states. National disaster response fund and State disaster response fund are created under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 which provide funds needed to tackle with such a disaster. National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) which formulates plans, policies, guidelines to ensure full protection and security. Such authorities are also established at the state and district level. The pandemic is also governed by the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1987 which is a century old British law formulated to tackle with dangerous pandemic. Wide powers are conferred to the State and Central Government which empower them to take unwarranted actions to curb the disease. Provisions made during such time are temporary and violation of such provisions lead to punishment in the form of penalty etc.

 Covid-19 and its liability under Tort of Negligence;

With the sudden outbreak of this horrible pandemic, it becomes important to address the issue of Covid-19 under tort law. A person who has knowledge of the disease and transmits such an infectious disease can be held liable under the tort of Negligence. In order to prove the tort of negligence, it has to be proved that

1. The plaintiff owed duty of care.
2. The plaintiff contravened the duty of care.
3. Element of causation
4. Damages on account of breach of duty

Duty of care:

First and foremost element is to prove that defendant owed duty of care towards the plaintiff. Duty of care does not mean social, economic, moral duty rather it implies legal duty. Every person is expected to exercise duty of care in such circumstances as would be exercised by a reasonable/prudent man – test of reasonable man. The Court stated that when a person was aware that he could transmit a deadly disease he owes a reasonable duty of care so as to not transmit to others^[1].

Breach of duty of care

In order to attract a claim under negligence it is important to show that the duty of care has been intentionally or with knowledge breached. . Every person is expected to exercise duty of care in such circumstances as would be exercised by a reasonable/prudent man – test of reasonable man. The standard followed here, is the test of reasonable man. In Covid19, such cases have been seen at an alarming rate, people showing symptoms or having tested positive are intentionally coming in contact with other people. 

Element of causation:

The most difficult part is to prove the element of causation i.e to prove that the plaintiff has acquired the deadly virus from the defendant itself, In other words defendant should be proved to be the original source of transmitting the virus. Causation can be proved easily in cases of transmission through direct contact. Causation can be proved in Covid cases if the test is taken rapidly.

Damages:

Plaintiff should have suffered mental of physical damage due to the said act of the defendant. Pecuniary damages are also included like hospital expenses etc.

Since the outbreak, there has been number of cases of infected people or carriers transmitting the deadly virus intentionally. It becomes highly essential to make people accountable for their negligent acts. In such challenging times, it is responsibility of every person to act prudently when they are aware that they are infected or are showing symptoms for the same.

Liability of Covid-19 under Indian statutes.

There are provisions under various acts that govern Covid-19. The pandemic is governed by the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 which is a century old British law formulated to tackle with dangerous pandemic. It is the shortest act which consists of 4 sections. Wide powers are conferred to the State and Central Government which empower them to take unwarranted actions to curb the disease. Provisions made during this period are temporary and violation of such provisions lead to punishment in the form of penalty etc. Violation of any rule formulated under Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is to be held accountable as per Section 188 of IPC, which states that any person disobeying an order of the public servant is punished with imprisonment extending upto 6 months. Apart from the Epidemic Act, various provisions dealing with such circumstances have been enshrined in the IPC itself.  Section 269 which talks about the negligent acts that transmit infectious disease to other people. Section 270 is an aggravated form of the above. Section 271 deals with any person violating the quarantine rules.

Conclusion:

With the Covid-19 outbreak, it is important to analyze the legal framework dealing with it. India truly lacks in such a challenging time is a new legislation specifically dealing with such pandemics. The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1987 was an archaic British law, with the changing dynamics every day, minute and second, It is appalling to see India still relying on it. No inclination is being seen from the Union Government to draft something specifically dealing with Covid-19 and bring all the events with respect to it under one broad umbrella. In UK, there has been a specific act namely Corona virus Act 2020, which deals with much contemporary issues such as employment modifications provisions, food supply provisions, leaves in lieu of providing medical assistance, financial assistance to the sectors in need etc. Singapore has also enacted Infectious Diseases Regulations, 2020 which formulate and provide information on the problems faced currently. Such consolidated, pro-active policy helps in clearing out ambiguity and provides regulations on the basis of existing circumstances. Infact, the present government has been making impromptu decisions. The wrath of which is being felt by the unorganized sector the most. It is pertinent to note that Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 restricts itself and deals only with the wide powers conferred to the government, there is no provision that restricts such powers in lieu of its exploitation. There should be more focus on the emergency health sector and the legal framework to deal with the issues faced by health sector. A comprehensive legislation is required to cover all the aspects existing under its ambit.

^[1] Hendricks v. Butcher 129 S.W. 431, 144 Mo.App. 671