Private Doctors Who Worked During Pandemic & Died Of COVID Eligible Under PM Insurance Scheme : Supreme Court

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment, which held that private doctors are not entitled to the Government's insurance scheme.

"There was a requisition of doctors as a matter of principle and as per the declaration under the law. Whether a particular doctor was functioning or not is left to be determined on the basis of evidence. Doctors who sacrificed during COVID period cannot be told, their families cannot be told that compensation won't be available. High Court's judgment is set aside to this extent," Justice Narasimha said during the pronouncement of the verdict.

The Court highlighted the the unprecedented nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, the high number of doctor deaths recorded by the Indian Medical Association, and the strain placed on the healthcare system.

"The onset of COVID-19 pandemic at the dawn of 2020 was unprecedented in its global sweep and consequence. Not since the 1918 influenza pandemic, an event coeval with the first world war, had a single infectious disease inflicted such widespread crisis on human civilisation. The global death toll rising to millions, as revealed in the World Health Organisation's data, presents a tragic picture of this disruption. While COVID-19 pandemic exposed an acute systemic fragility within the global healthcare sector, highlighted lack of preparedness and strained the capacity of health professionals, our doctors and health professionals rose as unwavering heroes, turning challenges into courage. Indian Medical Association's COVID-19 registry records 748 doctors' deaths in the first wave and hundreds more in subsequent waves; one estimate noted around 798 doctors lost during the second wave alone", the Court recorded.

In the absence of prescribed procedure to requisition doctors, the Bombay High Court had drawn a distinction between specific requisitioning/drafting of services and directing private practitioners not to keep their clinic closed.

However, the Supreme Court rejected this view, hold that there was requisition of doctors which could be inferred from the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and executive action.

"There is a requisition of services of doctors, and this is evident from the conjoint reading of provisions of the Act, the Maharashtra Prevention and Containment of Covid-19  Regulations 2020, the NMMC Order dated 31.03.2020, PMGKY-Package Scheme, explanatory communication to the PMGKY policy, and the FAQs released", the Court held.

Background

The case concerns the Central Government's insurance scheme Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19 (PMGKP), which was announced to provide insurance cover to health workers who died due to COVID-19 while serving during the pandemic.

The lead petitioner is the widow of one Dr. B.S. Surgade, an Ayurvedic practitioner who died of COVID-19 in June 2020. She sought ₹50 lakh compensation under the scheme. The New India Assurance Company rejected her claim on the ground that Dr. Surgade was carrying out private practice and had not been requisitioned by the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation for COVID-19 duty.

On March 9, 2021, the Bombay High Court upheld this stand. It held that the scheme applied only to health workers whose services were “requisitioned or drafted” by government authorities for COVID-19 duties. The High Court said there was no evidence that Dr. Surgade had been requisitioned under the scheme and noted that the petitioner had not challenged the constitutionality of the scheme but only sought her husband's inclusion under it.

On October 29, 2021, the Supreme Court issued notice in the special leave petition filed by Dr. Surgade's widow and other similarly placed petitioners. Several other doctors and families of deceased medical professionals joined the proceedings. The Supreme Court observed that the matter raised issues of “significant public importance” because it dealt with the government's assurance of insurance cover for health professionals who served during the pandemic.

During the hearing on October 28, 2025, the Court examined whether doctors who continued to treat patients during the pandemic but were not formally placed on government duty could be considered eligible under the scheme.

Justice Narasimha stressed the contribution of medical professionals and said, “Society will not forgive us if we don't take care of our doctors.” The Court said it would not decide individual claims but would set out broad principles for implementation.

The Court while reserving judgment indicated that two aspects were central: whether the doctor had actively offered medical services during the pandemic, and whether the death resulted from COVID-19 infection. It asked the Centre to provide data on similar or parallel schemes and said the government must ensure that insurance companies honour valid claims.

Supreme Court's judgment

The Supreme Court partially modified the Bombay High Court's judgment and declared that doctors and health professionals, including private practitioners, were indeed “requisitioned” during the COVID-19 pandemic under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the Maharashtra Prevention and Containment of COVID-19 Regulations, 2020.

It held that the Maharashtra Regulations empowered the Collector or Municipal Commissioner to requisition services of staff of government departments and, if required, “any other person”, and made violations punishable under Section 188 IPC.

The Court noted the NMMC's notice dated March 31, 2020, which invoked the Epidemic Diseases Act and directed Dr. Surgade to keep his dispensary open, warning of prosecution if he failed to comply. The Court observed that the notice was issued under statutory powers and in the compelling situation of March 2020.

The Court said the circumstances of March 2020 required immediate measures and that individual letter of appointment or requisitioning would not have been possible. It rejected the narrow approach of the High Court and held that the notice issued under the Regulations amounted to requisitioning.

"It is not difficult to conceive the situation, in which individual letter of appointment or requisitioning would not have been possible and that exactly the reason for invoking the  pidemic Diseases Act, 1897", the Court observed. The Court held that requisition could be inferred from the combined effect of the Act, the Regulations, the March 31, 2020 NMMC order, the PMGKY scheme and related communications.

The Court observed that the Central Government's March 26, 2020 press release announcing the PMGKY relief package, the March 28, 2020 order launching the PMGKP insurance scheme, the April 3, 2020 explanatory letter, and the FAQs issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare showed that private hospital staff and volunteers requisitioned or drafted by State authorities were intended to be covered. It held that the intention behind the Regulations and the insurance scheme was to assure health workers who were placed on the frontline.

"In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that there was a “requisition” of doctors and other medical professionals. We are not inclined to accept the rather simplistic submission that there was no specific requisition and therefore the claim for insurance must fail on this ground alone", the Court observed.

It clarified that individual claims must still be decided on evidence, and the claimant must prove that the deceased lost their life while performing COVID-19-related duties.

Case no. – SLP(C) No. 16860/2021

Case Title – Pradeep Arora v. Director, Health Department

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment