Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1420
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 16860 OF 2021
PRADEEP ARORA & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DIRECTOR, HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
1. Leave granted.
2. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.12.11
17:11:09 IST
Reason:
the capacity of health professionals, our doctors and health
professionals rose as unwavering heroes, turning challenges into
Page 1 of 25
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.
3. Four years after the pandemic, when we are called upon to
interpret the Government’s assurance under the Pradhan Mantri Garib
Kalyan Yojna, an insurance scheme for doctors and healthcare workers
fighting Covid-19, we can neither forget the situation that prevailed in
2020, nor the purport of State’s assurance to the doctors who were
‘requisitioned’ invoking special laws and regulations. A claim for
insurance by appellant no. 3, wife of a deceased doctor was rejected on
the ground that there is no proof of ‘requisitioning’ of his services for
Covid related duties. This decision was upheld by the High Court in the
order impugned before us. We are called upon to examine if there is
‘requisitioning’ of the services of appellant no. 2. Tasked with this duty,
we will now proceed to examine the laws, rules and regulation, by which
requisitioning was done.
4. In exercise of powers conferred by sections 2, 3 & 4 of the
Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, the Government of Maharashtra issued
Prevention and Containment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Regulations on 14.03.2020. Regulation 10 empowered the Municipal
Page 2 of 25
Commissioner to requisition the services of any person if so required.
Regulations 10 to 13 are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:
“ GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA
PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
G.T. Hospital Compound, 10th Floor, New Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 001
Dated 14th March, 2020
NOTIFICATION
No.Corona-2020/CR-58/Aarogya-5: Whereas State Government has
decided to invoke provisions of Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 vide
Notification No. Corona 2020/CR 58/Aarogya-5, dated 13th March,
2020 from the date of issue of the notification,
Therefore in exercise of the powers conferred under section 2, 3 & 4 of
the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Government of Maharashtra is
pleased to frame following Regulations for prevention and containment
of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19).
(…)
Regulation 10 . In the event of COVID-19 being reported from a defined
geographic area such as village, town, ward, colony, settlement, the
Collector of the concerned District/Municipal Commissioner of the
concerned Municipal Corporation shall be competent to implement
following containment measures, but not limited to these, in order to
prevent spread of the disease.
i. Sealing of the geographical area.
ii. Barring entry and exit of population from the containment area.
iii. Restricting Vehicular Movement in the area.
iv. Closure of schools, offices, cinema halls, swimming pools,
gyms, etc. and banning mass congregations, functions as may be
deemed necessary.
v. Initiating active and passive surveillance of COVID-19 cases.
vi. Hospital isolation of all suspected cases and their contacts.
vii. Designating any Government or Private Building as a
quarantine facility.
viii. Any other measure as directed by Public Health Department
of Government of Maharashtra.
Staff of all Government Departments and Organisations of the
concerned area will be at the disposal of Collector/ Municipal
Commissioner for discharging the duty of containment measures. If
required, Collector/ Municipal Commissioner may requisition the
services of any other person also.
Regulation 11. Any person / Institution / organization found violating
any provision of these Regulations shall be deemed to have committed
an offence punishable under section 188 of Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860). Empowered Officers may penalize any person institution /
Page 3 of 25
organization found violating provisions of these Regulations or any
further orders issued by Government under these Regulations.
Regulation 12 . No suit or legal proceedings shall lie against any
person for anything done or intended to be done in good faith under this
Regulation unless proved otherwise
Regulation 13 . These regulations shall come into force immediately
and shall remain valid for a period of one year, or until further orders,
whichever is earlier from the date of publication of this Notification.
By order and in the name of Governor of Maharashtra. ”
5. In exercise of powers under Regulation 10, the Commissioner,
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (‘NMMC’) issued a notice on
31.03.2020 directing the late husband of Appellant No. 3 to keep his
hospital/dispensary open during the lockdown period. The notice
specifically invokes Regulation 10 of the COVID Regulations and also
warns the addressee of criminal prosecution in the event of non-
compliance. The notice dated 31.03.2020 is as follows:
“ Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
Notice to keep the hospital /dispensary open in lock down period
No NMMC/Health
/1855/2020
Date:- 31.03.2020
Notice to keep the hospital/dispensary open in lock down
period
SUB:- Explanation as to why your hospital/dispensary is kept closed in
the lock down period
WHEREAS the Government of Maharashtra, in the exercise of the
power conferred under section 2,3 and 4 of the Epidemic Diseases Act,
1897, has framed Regulation vide Notification dated 14th March 2020,
for prevention and containment of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-
19).
AND WHEREAS under rule 10 of the said Regulations the Municipal
Commissioner/Empowered Officer are authorized to take any measures
for prevention, containment measures in order to prevent spread of
COVID-19.
Page 4 of 25
I Annasaheb Misal, Municipal Commissioner of Navi Mumbai Municipal
Corporation, in exercise of powers conferred upon me, had hereby
directed you vide order no 123/2020 to keep your hospital/dispensary
open.
And therefore it has been observed that your hospital/dispensary is
kept closed. I hereby order you open your hospital/dispensary in the
lock down period immediately after the receipt of the said notice by
following the containment measures of social distancing, every persons
face covered by mask and keeping hand sanitiser for every patient
visiting the hospital/dispensary, failing of which the Navi Mumbai
Municipal Corporation will be forced to file an FIR against you under
Section 188 of IPC 1860.
(Annasaheb Misal)
Commissioner
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation ”
6. While government and the corporations mandated availability of
doctors for COVID duty, the Central Government also announced
measures to assure doctors and frontline workers fighting the battle
against the Coronavirus. Press release dated 26.03.2020 announced
that, “Finance Minister announces Rs 1.70 Lakh Crore relief package
under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana for the poor to help them
fight the battle against Corona Virus” . The relief package inter alia
included:
“ I. Insurance scheme for health workers fighting COVID-19 in
Government Hospitals and Health Care Centres
Safai karamcharis, ward-boys, nurses, ASHA workers, paramedics,
technicians, doctors and specialists and other health workers would be
covered by a Special insurance Scheme.
Any health professional, who while treating Covid-19 patients, meet
with some accident, then he/she would be compensated with an
amount of Rs 50 lakh under the scheme.
All government health centres, wellness centres and hospitals of
Centre as well as States would be covered under this scheme
approximately 22 lakh health workers would be provided insurance
cover to fight this pandemic.
II. PM Garib Kalyan Ann Yojana
Page 5 of 25
Government of India would not allow anybody, especially any poor family, to
suffer on account of non-availability of foodgrains due to disruption in the next
three months.
80 crore individuals, i.e., roughly two-thirds of India's population would
be covered under this scheme.
Each one of them would be provided double of their current entitlement
over next three months.
This additionality would be free of cost.
To ensure adequate availability of protein to all the above mentioned
individuals, 1 kg per family, would be provided pulses according to
regional preferences for next three months.
These pulses would be provided free of cost by the Government of
India. ”
7. Following the announcement of the scheme, the Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, issued an order dated
28.03.2020 launching the insurance scheme for Health Workers fighting
COVID-19 named as the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana Package:
Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19 (‘PMGKY-
Package’). The said scheme assures next of kin of eligible healthcare
workers an insurance cover of Rs 50 lakhs. The order dated 28.03.2020
is extracted herein:
“ Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Department of Health and Family Welfare
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
Dated 28.03.2020
ORDER
As per the announcement made under the Pradhan Mantri Garib
Kalyan Package, the competent authority has approved the launch of
'Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health
Workers Fighting COVID-19' with the following conditions:
i. It will be a comprehensive personal accident cover of Rs. 50
lakh for ninety (90) days to a total of around 22.12 lakh public
healthcare providers, including community health workers, who
may have to be in direct contact and care of COVID-19 patients
and who may be at risk of being impacted by this. It will also
include accidental loss of life on account of contracting COVID-
19;
Page 6 of 25
ii. On account of the unprecedented situation, private hospital
staff/retired/volunteer/local urban bodies/contract/daily wage/ad-
hoc/outsourced staff requisitioned by States/Central
hospitals/autonomous hospitals of Central/States/UTs, AIIMS &
INIs/hospitals of Central Ministries can also be drafted for
COVID19 related responsibilities. These cases will also be
covered subject to numbers indicated by MoHFW;
iii. The scheme will be funded through the NDRF Budget
operated by the Health Ministry for this purpose;
iv. Actual payment by the Insurance Company to the beneficiary
will be under certification of the authorised Central State
Government Officials; and
v. The insurance provided under this scheme would be over and
above any other insurance cover being availed by the
beneficiary.
2. This Order is issued with the concurrence of Integrated Finance
Division vide their CD no. 4593.
(Alok Saxena)
Joint Secretary to the Government of India ”
8. An explanatory letter dated 03.04.2020 was addressed to all
stakeholders to dispel any notion of limited coverage while informing
them that the scheme benefits were inclusive of healthcare providers. It
was intended to encourage doctors to come forward without a sense of
insecurity about their health or that of their families. The relevant extract
of the explanatory letter is extracted below:
rd
“ Dated 03 April, 2020
Dear All,
In continuation of letters by Secretary, MoHFW (D.O. No.
Z.21020/16/2020- PH, dated 30th March 2020), addressed to all the
Chief Secretaries/Administrators of the States/UTs and the Heads of
all the Associations of Doctors/Healthcare providers regarding
'Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health
Workers Fighting COVID-19', you are requested to kindly inform all
such health care providers through various mediums like SMS,
whatsapp, e-mail etc. in local language about their inclusion under
Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health
Page 7 of 25
Workers Fighting COVID-19 in line with the enclosed order regarding
this scheme.
The claim Form-I (Personal Accident Insurance Claim Form for loss of
life due to COVID19) and Form-II (Personal Accident Insurance Claim
Form for accidental loss of life on account of COVID-19 related duty)
for the above scheme detailing the procedure, claim certifying
authority and documents to be submitted along with claim form is also
attached for your reference and disbursal.
I request you to give more publicity to this initiative to instill a sense of
security among healthcare providers. In case of any clarifications, Dr.
Manohar Agnani, JS (RCH) may be contacted by the States / UTs at
agnanim@ias.nic.in . ”
9. To provide further clarity on the eligibility of the beneficiaries under
the PMGKY-Program, a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) was also
released, elaborating on the coverage under the scheme, time duration,
who should to pay the premium, procedure to follow, and the documents
required to avail the benefits under the scheme. Answers to the FAQs
make it clear that it PMGKY-Package covers a variety of private
healthcare workers if their services were ‘requisitioned by States’. The
relevant portion of the FAQs is extracted below:
“ Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for
Health Workers Fighting COVID-19
FAQ’s
Question 1: What does this Scheme cover?
This accident insurance scheme covers;
Loss of life due to COVID19, and
Accidental death on account of COVID-19 related duty.
Question 2: What is the definition of Accident?
An accident is sudden, unforeseen and involuntary event caused by
external, visible and violent means.
Question 3: Who all are covered under the scheme?
Public healthcare providers including healthcare community providers
health workers, who may have to be in direct contact and care of
COVID 19 patients and who may be at risk of being impacted by this.
Page 8 of 25
Private hospital staff and retired /volunteer /local urban bodies/
contracted /daily wage /ad hoc/outsourced staff requisitioned by
States/ Central hospitals/ autonomous hospitals of Central/States/UTs,
AIIMS and INIs/ hospital of Central Ministries can also be drafted for
COVID 19 related responsibilities.
Question 4: Who can be a volunteer under this scheme?
Volunteers are those who are drafted by the Government Official
authorized by Central/State/ UT Government for care and may have
come in direct contact of the COVID 19 patient
Question 5: Who are ‘Private persons’ under this scheme?
Private persons are those who are engaged by both public & private
health care institutions/organization through an agency and were
deployed /drafted for care and may have come in direct contact of the
COVID-19 patient (with the proof that the service of the agencies were
engaged by the institution/organization).
Question 6: When does insurance coverage policy begins and ends?
The duration of the policy is for a period of 90 days, starting from
March 30, 2020.
Question 7: Is there any age-limit for health workers under this
scheme? There’s no age limit for this scheme.
Question 8: Is individual enrolment required?
Individual enrolment is not required.
Question 9: Whether an individual is required to pay any premium to
be eligible under the scheme?
The entire amount of premium for this scheme is being borne by the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.
Question 10: What is the benefit available to the insured persons?
INR 50 LAKHS will be paid to the claimant of the insured person.
Question 11: Is COVID-19 laboratory test mandatory for claiming the
benefit?
Laboratory report certifying positive medical test is required for loss of
life on account of COVID-19. However, it is not required in case of
Accidental loss of life on account of COVID-19 related duty .
Question 12: Whether expenses incurred on treatment or during
quarantine are covered under the scheme?
Any type of expenses related to treatment or quarantine is not
covered.
Question 13: If a person is having another Personal accident policy or
life insurance policy, what is the effect of the same on claim under this
policy?
Page 9 of 25
The benefit/claim under this policy is in addition to the amount payable
under any other policies.
Question 14: Documents required to claim benefits under this
scheme? a. In case of Loss of life due to COVID19 following
documents are required:
I. Claim form duly filled and signed by the nominee/claimant.
II. Identity proof of Deceased (Certified copy)
III. Identity proof of the Claimant (Certified copy)
IV. Proof of relationship between the Deceased and the Claimant
(Certified copy)
V. Laboratory Report certifying having tested Positive for COVID-19
(in Original or Certified copy)
VI. Death summary by the Hospital where death occurred (in case
death occurred in hospital) (Certified copy).
VII. Death Certificate (in Original)
VIII. Certificate by the Healthcare Institution/ organization/office that
the deceased was an employee of /engaged by the institution
and was deployed/drafted for care and may have come in direct
contact of the COVID-19 patient. For community health care
workers, the Certificate should be from Medical Officer of
Primary Health Centre (PHC) that ASHA/ASHA Facilitator was
drafted for work related to COVID-19.
”
10. On 08/09.05.2020, the Director of Medical Education & Research
(‘DMER’), Respondent No. 3 herein, issued an order directing all
registered doctors of homoeopathy and Ayurved to make their services
available for the COVID-19 cure. The said letter was also issued to the
Dr. Surgade, late husband of appellant no. 3. The relevant extract of the
said order is as follows:
“ DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH
Govt. Dental College & Hospital Building,
St. George's Hospital Compound, Near V.T., Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400001
No. DMER/COVID-19/RMP's/MCIM/262/2020/A
Date: 09.05.2020
NOTIFICATION
To,
ALL R.M.P’s
Registered in MCIM (only Ayurved faculty)
Page 10 of 25
Sub: Utilization of services of Registered R.M.P’s in MCIM (Only
Ayurved Faculty) for COVID-19 Patients in Mumbai and suburban
district-
Ref.: 1. The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897;
2. The Disaster Management Act, 2005;
3. The Maharashtra Essential Service Maintenance (Amendment)
Act, 2011;
4. The Mumbai Nursing Home Registration (Amendment) Act,
2006
5. The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short B.P.T. Act)
As you are aware, Nation is facing COVID-19 pandemic. The State and
Central Government is taking every precaution to fight against this
deadly viral infection In Mumbai city, the outbreak of COVID-19 is
spreading very fast as compared to other parts of the State. Hence the
State Government has taken rigorous steps towards Prevention,
Control and Treatment of COVID-19 patient.
Whereas the Government of Maharashtra, in exercise of the powers
conferred under Section 2 3. & 4 of the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897
has framed Regulations for Prevention, Control and Treatment of
COVID-19 under No. corona 2020/CR/58/Aarogya-5, dated 13th March
2020.
And where Director of Medical Education and Research, has been
declared as "Empowered Officer" & is empowered to take such
measures as are necessary to prevent the outbreak of COVID-19 or
spread thereof within his respective jurisdiction,
I Dr. T.P. Lahane, in the larger public interest and in exercise of the
powers conferred upon me request you as follows:
that your services are required for the prevention and treatment of
COVID-19 patient at least for 15 days. You shall therefore convey your
willingness and place of choice where you would like to render your
services to https://forms.gle/ucfYQB7s2pwBVDL98 within 3 days. Non-
attendance of the duty will be considered as breach of Hippocratic Oath
that we administered at the time of obtaining degree and action will be
initiated according to the provisions of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
and other Acts referred above.
(Dr. T. P. Lahane)
Director,
Medical Education & Research, Mumbai ”
11. Facts: The facts relevant to the appeal are that, husband of
appellant no. 3, Late Dr. B S Surgade, was a medical practitioner
Page 11 of 25
running a private medical clinic. It was contended on behalf of appellant
no. 3 that her husband Dr. Surgade was directed to keep his clinic open
as per the NMMC notice dated 31.03.2020 reproduced above, and his
services were also requisitioned by the communication dated 09.05.2020
extracted above.
12. Dr. Surgade was infected and tested positive for COVID-19
infection on 08.06.2020, and succumbed to the infection on 10.06.2020.
Appellant no. 3 applied to the insurance company, respondent No. 6,
seeking insurance benefits under the PMGKY-Package. However, by
letter dated 07.09.2020 Joint Director, Medical Services, communicated
to Medical Health Officer of the corporation rejecting the claim on three
grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the late Dr Surgade was carrying out
a private practice and hence his next of kin was ineligible for the benefit
under the scheme. Secondly, that Dr Surgade’s dispensary was not a
COVID-19 designated dispensary, and thirdly, that Dr Surgade’s services
were not requisitioned. The relevant portions of the order dated
07.09.2020, containing the reasons for the denial of insurance benefit,
are extracted below:
“ To,
Medical Health Officer,
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
Sub: - Covid-19 infected/Officers who died in the accident
/Employee nomination for insurance claim sanction under PM
Garib Kalyan Package deceased Dr. Bhaksar Surgade, Private
Medical Professional A-1002, Satyam Imperialites, Plot-2, Sector-
22, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai 400701
Page 12 of 25
MangirishRangnekar <drmangerish@gmail.com>
Ref: - 1) Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi order
dt.28.03.2020
2) Government Ltr. No. Carona2020/P.K. 84/Health-5, dt.11 April,2020
3) Mr. Mangirish Regnekar Email dt. 19.08.2020
4) 4) This office letter Out. No. SAS/Director room/Prime minister poor
welfare package/Insurance/ Perfect Proposal/7623-29/2020, dt.
20.08.2020
5) Your letter No. N.M.M.P./Health/9504/2020, dated 01.09.2020.
Above mentioned matter reference no. 1 and 2, treatment of patients
related to Covid-19 diseases by Central Government, investigating
officers providing all types of health services and employees under this
package Rs. 50 lakh insurance cover is for the first 90 days.
Accordingly, in case of covid infection and death under this package,
amount of Rs 50 lakh will be provided through the accident insurance
scheme of New India Assurance Company for the families of the
officers and employees providing health services. This insurance cover
will be available to all those involved in the investigation and treatment
of COVID - 19 infestation. This includes private hospital staff / retired
staff / contract staff / salaried staff / staff provided by external agencies,
Asha, Anganwadi staff, Central State Local Self Government
Institutions etc. In order to get this sum assured to the beneficiaries, it is
necessary for the concerned State or Central Government to certify that
the death of the insured was due to COVID-19 obstruction and related
to this work. Under Section 2 of Section 2, the Director, Health Services
has been declared as the competent authority to certify the application
filed under the State and submit it to the insurance company.
According to Reference No.3 the deceased Dr. Bhaskar Surgade in our
jurisdiction, Private medical professional, Navi Mumbai the office
received an email about him. Accordingly, reference No. 4, the
information was sought from us about the services of private Medical
professional deceased Dr. Bhaskar Surgade in this case,
With regard to reference No.5, deceased Dr. Bhaskar Surgade, a
private medical professional, was serving in his own private hospital.
His service has not been acquired by Navi Mumbai Municipal
Corporation. Also the hospital providing the service has not been
acquired as Covid Hospital. Such clear feedback has been submitted to
this office.
Therefore, the late Dr. Bhaskar Surgade's service at first sight reference
No. 1 and 2 respectively not included in the terms and conditions of the
said scheme, it will not be possible to send their insurance proposal for
further action.
(Dr. Nandkumar Deshmukh)
Joint Director, Health Services, (Malaria, Elephantiasis and Waterborne
Diseases) Pune – 1 ”
Page 13 of 25
13. It is against the above-referred order denying the claim of the
appellant no. 3, that Writ Petition No. 93840/2020 was filed by appellant
no. 3 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, inter alia, praying
for:
“ a) That this Court be pleased be exercise its jurisdiction under
Constitution of India and issue writ or direction calling for the record and
proceedings from the office of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 and after
examining the validity, legality and propriety and correctness be given
order and or direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 4 to quash and set
aside the Impugned Order annexed as Exhibit- "O" and allow the claim
of the Petitioner that annexed as Exhibit-"J".
b) The Court be pleased to give an order and or direction to the
respondent No.6 - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to immediately
disburse the claim of the Petitioner annexed as Exhibit- "J" in time
bound schedule.
c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the writ petition be pleased
to direct the respondents except respondent No.6 to file their respective
affidavit in respect of claim of the Petitioner. ”
14. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the order impugned
before us. After rejection of appellant’s claim, the Principal Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra, communicated to the Secretary,
Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, dated
01.10.2020, requesting the Union to extend the benefits of insurance
coverage to all private practitioners. The letter was responded to by the
Deputy Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India, on 15.10.2020 clarifying as under:
“ Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter No. Corona-2020/CR430/Aa5
dated 01.10.2020 regarding the subject mentioned above and to
state the following:-
(i) PMGKP: Insurance Scheme for Health workers fighting COVID-19
was launched w.e.f. 30.03.2020 to provide comprehensive personal
accident cover of Rs. 50 lakh to public healthcare providers,
including community health workers, who may have to be in direct
Page 14 of 25
contact and care of COVID-19 patients and who may be at risk of
being impacted by this.
(ii) On account of the unprecedented situation, private hospital staff/
retired/volunteer/ local urban bodies/contract/daily wage/ ad-
hoc/outsourced staff requisitioned by States/Central
hospitals/autonomous hospitals of Central/States/UTs, AIIMS
&INIS/hospitals of Central Ministries can also be drafted for
COVID19 related responsibilities. These cases are also covered
under the scheme subject to fulfilment of the following conditions -
(a) They should have been drafted by the States/ Central
hospitals/ autonomous hospitals of Central/ States/ UTs, AIIMS &
INIS/hospitals of Central Ministries for COVID 19 related
responsibilities.
(b) They should have been working as a front-line health workers,
who may have to be in direct contact and care of COVID-19
patients and who may be at risk of being impacted by this.
(c) The loss of life is due to COVID-19 or accidental death on
account of COVID-19 related duty.
2. In view of the above, no other group of healthcare workers other
than those mentioned under (i) & (ii) above, can be included under
PMGKP: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19. ”
15. High Court placed great emphasis on the words ‘drafted’ and
‘requisitioned’ for ‘COVID-19 related responsibilities’ which appear in the
letter dated 15.10.2020 and similar wordings in the FAQs to the scheme.
Reading these documents, the High Court came to the conclusion that,
while private medical practitioners fall under the ambit of the Insurance
Scheme, claims for insurance must necessarily establish that the
services of the deceased medical professional were requisitioned in
relation to COVID-19-related duty. The relevant portion of the impugned
order is as under:
“21. In order to demonstrate that Dr. Surgade’s services were
requestioned, the Petitioner has placed paramount reliance on the NMMC
Notice dated 31st March, 2020. Therefore, we propose to analyse the
NMMC Notice reproduced hereinabove. By this notice, the NMMC called
upon inter alia Dr. Surgade to explain why his private dispensary was
kept closed during the lock down. It stated that despite earlier Orders, Dr.
Page 15 of 25
Surgade’s dispensary was kept closed. Resultantly, the NMMC Notice
came to be issued calling upon Dr. Surgade to keep open his dispensary
after following the prescribed measures for social distancing etc. In our
opinion, a plain reading of this NMMC Notice cannot be construed as a
notice requisitioning Dr. Surgade’s services for the specific purpose of
treating COVID-19 patients and/or working in a COVID-19 centre /
hospital. There is a difference between specifically requisitioning / drafting
services and directing private practitioners to not keep their clinic closed.
In the present case, this distinction is evident from the record. The intent
and object of the NMMC Notice was to encourage medical practitioners to
keep open their dispensaries which were otherwise closed due to the fear
of COVID-19. This notice did not mandate that the said dispensaries are
to be kept open for COVID-19. As opposed to this letter, the Medical
Education & Research, Mumbai’s circular dated 8th May, 2020
specifically stated “that your services are required for the prevention and
treatment of COVID-19 patient atleast for 15 days”. Clearly therefore, the
circular dated 8th May, 2020 was a specific requisition within the meaning
of the Scheme and not the NMMC Notice dated 31st March, 2020. We do
not agree with the Petitioner’s reliance on the words “prevention,
containment measures in order to prevent the spread of Covid-19”. The
NMMC Notice has to be read as a whole and not in isolation. Resultantly,
we hold that the NMMC Notice would not amount to a requisition for the
purposes of the Scheme. Resultantly, the question of estoppel applying
would not arise. As stated earlier, Dr. Surgade had not responded to the
notification /circular dated 8th May, 2020 by offering/giving his services as
requested therein.
22. We now consider the overwhelming evidence produced by the
Respondents explicitly demonstrating that Dr. Surgade’s services were
not requisitioned for the purposes of treating COVID-19 patients and/or
working in a COVID-19 centre/hospital:
i. The Respondents have pleaded before us on oath that Dr.
Surgade’s services were not requisitioned;
ii. The Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Turbhe has submitted a
report dated 21st August, 2020 stating that the information with
respect to Dr. Surgade’s services being requestioned are not available
and instead; he was carrying out his private practice;
iii. Following the aforesaid, the report dated 1st September, 2020
issued by the Medical Officer of Health, NMMC categorically stated
that Dr. Surgade’s services were neither requisitioned by NMMC for
COVID-19 related responsibilities nor was his clinic requisitioned as a
COVID-19 hospital;
iv. NMMC has addressed a letter dated 1st September, 2020 also
stating that Dr. Surgade’s services were not requisitioned by NMMC.
23. In view of the aforesaid overwhelming correspondence, we would be
required to accept the Respondents’ contention and assertion that Dr.
Surgade’s services were not requisitioned as mandated under the
Scheme and therefore, the Petitioner cannot now avail of the Scheme. As
opposed to the aforesaid documentary record produced by the
Page 16 of 25
Respondents, the Petitioner has, barring the NMMC Notice, been unable
to bring on record any documentary proof to establish that Dr. Surgade’s
services were availed for the purpose of treating and/or in relation to
COVID-19. As a result, we hold that Dr. Surgade’s services were not
requisitioned as required under the Scheme and therefore, the Scheme
would be inapplicable in the present matter.
24. Considering that Dr. Surgade’s services were not requisitioned as
mandated under the Scheme, we are unable to extend the applicability of
the Scheme to persons who fall outside the ambit thereof. Resultantly, no
relief can be granted to the Petitioner. This being so, we also find no merit
in the contention that Dr. Surgade duly completed the AYUSH training for
COVID-19 preparedness, response and containment. The completeness
or otherwise of AYUSH training bears no relevance to the applicability of
the Scheme.
(…)
26. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.”
16. Taking into account the requirement of ‘requisitioning’, the High
Court concluded that the appellant’s claim under the insurance policy is
unsubstantiated as Mr. Surgade’s services were not requisitioned.
st
Referring to NMMC notice dated 31 March, 2020, the High Court drew
a distinction between specific requisitioning/drafting of services and
directing private practitioners not to keep their clinic closed and
concluded that:
a) The purpose of NMMC notice is only to encourage medical
practitioners to keep open their dispensaries, which were
otherwise closed due to fear of COVID-19.
b) The notice does not mandate that dispensaries be kept open
for COVID-19.
c) The notice called upon Dr. Surgade to explain why his
private dispensary was kept closed during lockdown despite
orders. Resultantly, the notice calls upon Dr. Surgade to
Page 17 of 25
keep the dispensary open after following the prescribed
measures.
d) As opposed to the 31st March, 2020 notice, circulars dated
8th May-9th May, 2020 specifically requisition the services
within the meaning of the scheme.
e) However, Dr. Surgade did not respond to the circular dated
8th May, 2020 and did not offer or give his services
requisitioned.
17. On the basis of the material on record, the High Court dismissed
the Writ Petition relying on the following evidences, which in High Court’s
view established conclusively that Dr. Surgade’s services were not
requisitioned;
(i) Affidavit filed on behalf of the Government indicating that the
services of Dr. Surgade were not requisitioned.
st
(ii) Report dated 21 August, 2020, of Medical Officer Primary
Health Centre, Turbhe, stating that there is no evidence that
Dr. Surgade’s services were requisitioned.
st
(iii) Report dated 1 September, 2020, issued by Medical Officer
NMMC categorically stating that Dr. Surgade’s services were
neither requisitioned by NMMC nor was his clinic a
requisitioned medical facility.
st
(iv) Letter dated 1 September, 2020 of NMMC stating that Dr.
Surgade’s services were not requisitioned.
Page 18 of 25
(v) The Ayush training for Covid-19 preparedness of Dr.
Surgade has no relevance to the applicability of the scheme.
18. We heard Dr. Pradeep Arora, appellant no. 1-in person on behalf of
all the appellants and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. Additional Solicitor
General for the respondent. At the time of reserving our judgment, we
had conveyed to the stakeholders that we will examine the appeal only
to the extent of interpreting the policy under PMGKY-Package and to see
if there is requisition of services of appellant no. 3’s husband under the
Act and the Regulation and will not undertake a factual inquiry in relation
to the individual claims.
19. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG, argues that the purpose of the
NMMC notice issued under the provisions of the Prevention and
Containment of COVID-19 Regulations 2020, directing hospitals and
dispensaries to remain operational, was to ensure the continuity of
essential healthcare services and to prevent disruption of routine
medical care. Submitting so, Ms. Bhati argued that the impugned order
was well-reasoned and does not warrant any interference. Ld. ASG also
brought to our notice that the insurance cover under PMGKY-Package is
over and above other insurance policies that cover life and provide
rehabilitation and restitution.
Page 19 of 25
20. As there is no prescribed procedure for requisitioning services of
doctors or other medical professionals, and the High Court came to the
conclusion that there is no document, letter or material evidencing such
requisitioning, we have to decide the question as to how requisitioning of
services can be inferred and concluded. This is necessary because a
claim for insurance under PMGKY-Package necessitates requisition of
service and the consequent loss of life while performing COVID-19-
related duties. In the circumstances, requisitioning has to be seen and
assessed in the context of the situation that prevailed, coupled with the
applicable laws and the executive actions that were resorted to.
21. Circumstances that prevailed at the dawn of 2020, required
immediate implementation of certain compelling measures to control and
handle the ill effects of the pandemic, and this included invocation of the
Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and issuance of necessary Rules and
Regulations for implementation of Covid-19-related measures. Insofar as
the State of Maharashtra is concerned, Prevention and Containment of
Covid-19 Regulation 2020 were issued, inter alia providing that the
Collector or the Municipal Commissioner shall be competent to take
measures, such as sealing of the geographical area, requisition, if
necessary, staff of Government Departments and organizations. It also
provides that “if required the Collector, Municipal Commissioner may
requisition the services of any other person also” .
Page 20 of 25
22. Regulation 11 declares that any person found to be violating the
provisions of the regulations will be punished under the provisions of the
Indian Penal Code. Therefore, there is no gainsaying about the fact that
circumstances in which the country was reeling under the COVID-19
pandemic required States and their instrumentalities to take immediate
measures. This included requisitioning and drafting of doctors and other
healthcare professionals as an emergent measure, as many as possible
and as early as State can.
23. It is in the above referred context that, invoking powers under the
Act and the 2020 Regulation, the Commissioner, Navi Mumbai issued
notice dated 31.03.2020 calling upon Dr. Surgade to explain the reason
for not keeping the hospital/dispensary open during the lockdown period.
This notice clearly refers to the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the
powers thereunder (Sections 2, 3 and 4). Intimating Dr. Surgade that
vide order no. 123/2020 he was already directed to keep his
hospital/dispensary open, the notice dated 31.03.2020 directs and
orders Dr. Surgade to open the hospital/dispensary immediately, failing
which, the Corporation will be forced to file an FIR under Section 188 of
the IPC.
24. Taking into account the live situation that existed as on March
2020, coupled with the invocation of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
Page 21 of 25
and the Regulations 2020 thereunder, there cannot be any doubt about
the compelling situation in which the Governments and their
instrumentalities requisitioned services of doctors and other health
professionals to be on the frontline for containing the fast-spreading
infection. 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 Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
and the Regulation 2020 for implementing immediate measures. Further,
powers under the Act and Regulation 2020 were also exercised while
issuing the order dated 31.03.2020 issued in the nature of show cause
notice to Late Dr. Surgade. 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.
25. The truth and reality of requisitioning is also evident from the
decisions of the government, made almost at the same time. In the
same month, i.e., in March 2020, the Finance Ministry issued the press
release dated 26.03.2020, and this was followed by the declaration of
the PMGKY-Package on 28.03.2020. The FAQs and the clarificatory
letter dated 03.04.2020 issued thereafter also prove that large number of
doctors and healthcare professionals were requisitioned, and this
Page 22 of 25
compelling measure is not confined to Government employees, but also
extended to private doctors and hospitals. The insurance cover under
PMGKY-Package was extended to all those who were requisitioned by
law and the executive actions under the compelling circumstances.
26. In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to take a
narrow view of the intent and application of Regulation 14.03.2020 and
the NMMC notice dated 31.03.2020 to conclude, as the High Court did,
that there was no requisition.
27. The country has not forgotten the situation that prevailed at the
onset of Covid-19, when every citizen contributed in some measure,
despite fear of infection or imminent death. That is also a moment of
pride and recognition of the strength of character and discipline that our
people demonstrated when circumstances demanded it.
28. The courage and sacrifice of by our doctors remain indelible, as
five years following the pandemic that spared us, we are now called
upon to interpret the laws and regulations enacted for urgent requisition
of doctors and health professionals to safeguard public from the
seemingly overwhelming onslaught of Covid 2019. We have no
hesitation in concluding that invocation of laws and Regulations were
intended to leave no stone unturned in requisitioning the doctors and the
insurance scheme was equally intended to assure doctors and health
Page 23 of 25
professionals in the front line that the country is with them. In this view of
the matter, we are not inclined to take the view that there was no
requisitioning of the doctors and medical professionals.
29. Once we have decided that there was ‘requisition’, the applicability
of the insurance policy will then depend upon actual evidence. Whether
the doctor or healthcare professional has, and in fact, presented and
offered his or her services in furtherance of COVID-19-related
responsibilities is a matter of evidence. If there is clear evidence that the
deceased lost his life while performing COVID-19-related duties, the
policy will have to be applied. We have already indicated that our enquiry
is confined to determining the question as to whether there is ‘requisition’
of the services of doctors and health professionals. We are not
examining the credibility of individual claims. It is for the concerned
offices or agencies to look into individual claims on the basis of clear
evidence.
30. In view of the above, in partial modification of the judgment and
order of the High Court, we declare that;
a) 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,
Page 24 of 25
explanatory communication to the PMGKY policy, and the FAQs
released.
b) Individual claims for insurance made as per the PMGKY-Package
will be considered and decided in accordance with the law and on
the basis of the evidence. The onus to prove that a deceased lost
his life while performing a COVID-19-related duty is on the
claimant, and the same needs to be established on the basis of
credible evidence.
31. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
Pending applications including the application for
intervention/impleadment are also disposed of.
………………………………....J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
………………………………....J.
[R. MAHADEVAN]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 11, 2025
Page 25 of 25
2025 INSC 1420
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 16860 OF 2021
PRADEEP ARORA & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DIRECTOR, HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
1. Leave granted.
2. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.12.11
17:11:09 IST
Reason:
the capacity of health professionals, our doctors and health
professionals rose as unwavering heroes, turning challenges into
Page 1 of 25
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.
3. Four years after the pandemic, when we are called upon to
interpret the Government’s assurance under the Pradhan Mantri Garib
Kalyan Yojna, an insurance scheme for doctors and healthcare workers
fighting Covid-19, we can neither forget the situation that prevailed in
2020, nor the purport of State’s assurance to the doctors who were
‘requisitioned’ invoking special laws and regulations. A claim for
insurance by appellant no. 3, wife of a deceased doctor was rejected on
the ground that there is no proof of ‘requisitioning’ of his services for
Covid related duties. This decision was upheld by the High Court in the
order impugned before us. We are called upon to examine if there is
‘requisitioning’ of the services of appellant no. 2. Tasked with this duty,
we will now proceed to examine the laws, rules and regulation, by which
requisitioning was done.
4. In exercise of powers conferred by sections 2, 3 & 4 of the
Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, the Government of Maharashtra issued
Prevention and Containment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Regulations on 14.03.2020. Regulation 10 empowered the Municipal
Page 2 of 25
Commissioner to requisition the services of any person if so required.
Regulations 10 to 13 are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:
“ GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA
PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
G.T. Hospital Compound, 10th Floor, New Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 001
Dated 14th March, 2020
NOTIFICATION
No.Corona-2020/CR-58/Aarogya-5: Whereas State Government has
decided to invoke provisions of Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 vide
Notification No. Corona 2020/CR 58/Aarogya-5, dated 13th March,
2020 from the date of issue of the notification,
Therefore in exercise of the powers conferred under section 2, 3 & 4 of
the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Government of Maharashtra is
pleased to frame following Regulations for prevention and containment
of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19).
(…)
Regulation 10 . In the event of COVID-19 being reported from a defined
geographic area such as village, town, ward, colony, settlement, the
Collector of the concerned District/Municipal Commissioner of the
concerned Municipal Corporation shall be competent to implement
following containment measures, but not limited to these, in order to
prevent spread of the disease.
i. Sealing of the geographical area.
ii. Barring entry and exit of population from the containment area.
iii. Restricting Vehicular Movement in the area.
iv. Closure of schools, offices, cinema halls, swimming pools,
gyms, etc. and banning mass congregations, functions as may be
deemed necessary.
v. Initiating active and passive surveillance of COVID-19 cases.
vi. Hospital isolation of all suspected cases and their contacts.
vii. Designating any Government or Private Building as a
quarantine facility.
viii. Any other measure as directed by Public Health Department
of Government of Maharashtra.
Staff of all Government Departments and Organisations of the
concerned area will be at the disposal of Collector/ Municipal
Commissioner for discharging the duty of containment measures. If
required, Collector/ Municipal Commissioner may requisition the
services of any other person also.
Regulation 11. Any person / Institution / organization found violating
any provision of these Regulations shall be deemed to have committed
an offence punishable under section 188 of Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860). Empowered Officers may penalize any person institution /
Page 3 of 25
organization found violating provisions of these Regulations or any
further orders issued by Government under these Regulations.
Regulation 12 . No suit or legal proceedings shall lie against any
person for anything done or intended to be done in good faith under this
Regulation unless proved otherwise
Regulation 13 . These regulations shall come into force immediately
and shall remain valid for a period of one year, or until further orders,
whichever is earlier from the date of publication of this Notification.
By order and in the name of Governor of Maharashtra. ”
5. In exercise of powers under Regulation 10, the Commissioner,
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (‘NMMC’) issued a notice on
31.03.2020 directing the late husband of Appellant No. 3 to keep his
hospital/dispensary open during the lockdown period. The notice
specifically invokes Regulation 10 of the COVID Regulations and also
warns the addressee of criminal prosecution in the event of non-
compliance. The notice dated 31.03.2020 is as follows:
“ Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
Notice to keep the hospital /dispensary open in lock down period
No NMMC/Health
/1855/2020
Date:- 31.03.2020
Notice to keep the hospital/dispensary open in lock down
period
SUB:- Explanation as to why your hospital/dispensary is kept closed in
the lock down period
WHEREAS the Government of Maharashtra, in the exercise of the
power conferred under section 2,3 and 4 of the Epidemic Diseases Act,
1897, has framed Regulation vide Notification dated 14th March 2020,
for prevention and containment of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-
19).
AND WHEREAS under rule 10 of the said Regulations the Municipal
Commissioner/Empowered Officer are authorized to take any measures
for prevention, containment measures in order to prevent spread of
COVID-19.
Page 4 of 25
I Annasaheb Misal, Municipal Commissioner of Navi Mumbai Municipal
Corporation, in exercise of powers conferred upon me, had hereby
directed you vide order no 123/2020 to keep your hospital/dispensary
open.
And therefore it has been observed that your hospital/dispensary is
kept closed. I hereby order you open your hospital/dispensary in the
lock down period immediately after the receipt of the said notice by
following the containment measures of social distancing, every persons
face covered by mask and keeping hand sanitiser for every patient
visiting the hospital/dispensary, failing of which the Navi Mumbai
Municipal Corporation will be forced to file an FIR against you under
Section 188 of IPC 1860.
(Annasaheb Misal)
Commissioner
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation ”
6. While government and the corporations mandated availability of
doctors for COVID duty, the Central Government also announced
measures to assure doctors and frontline workers fighting the battle
against the Coronavirus. Press release dated 26.03.2020 announced
that, “Finance Minister announces Rs 1.70 Lakh Crore relief package
under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana for the poor to help them
fight the battle against Corona Virus” . The relief package inter alia
included:
“ I. Insurance scheme for health workers fighting COVID-19 in
Government Hospitals and Health Care Centres
Safai karamcharis, ward-boys, nurses, ASHA workers, paramedics,
technicians, doctors and specialists and other health workers would be
covered by a Special insurance Scheme.
Any health professional, who while treating Covid-19 patients, meet
with some accident, then he/she would be compensated with an
amount of Rs 50 lakh under the scheme.
All government health centres, wellness centres and hospitals of
Centre as well as States would be covered under this scheme
approximately 22 lakh health workers would be provided insurance
cover to fight this pandemic.
II. PM Garib Kalyan Ann Yojana
Page 5 of 25
Government of India would not allow anybody, especially any poor family, to
suffer on account of non-availability of foodgrains due to disruption in the next
three months.
80 crore individuals, i.e., roughly two-thirds of India's population would
be covered under this scheme.
Each one of them would be provided double of their current entitlement
over next three months.
This additionality would be free of cost.
To ensure adequate availability of protein to all the above mentioned
individuals, 1 kg per family, would be provided pulses according to
regional preferences for next three months.
These pulses would be provided free of cost by the Government of
India. ”
7. Following the announcement of the scheme, the Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Government of India, issued an order dated
28.03.2020 launching the insurance scheme for Health Workers fighting
COVID-19 named as the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana Package:
Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19 (‘PMGKY-
Package’). The said scheme assures next of kin of eligible healthcare
workers an insurance cover of Rs 50 lakhs. The order dated 28.03.2020
is extracted herein:
“ Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Department of Health and Family Welfare
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
Dated 28.03.2020
ORDER
As per the announcement made under the Pradhan Mantri Garib
Kalyan Package, the competent authority has approved the launch of
'Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health
Workers Fighting COVID-19' with the following conditions:
i. It will be a comprehensive personal accident cover of Rs. 50
lakh for ninety (90) days to a total of around 22.12 lakh public
healthcare providers, including community health workers, who
may have to be in direct contact and care of COVID-19 patients
and who may be at risk of being impacted by this. It will also
include accidental loss of life on account of contracting COVID-
19;
Page 6 of 25
ii. On account of the unprecedented situation, private hospital
staff/retired/volunteer/local urban bodies/contract/daily wage/ad-
hoc/outsourced staff requisitioned by States/Central
hospitals/autonomous hospitals of Central/States/UTs, AIIMS &
INIs/hospitals of Central Ministries can also be drafted for
COVID19 related responsibilities. These cases will also be
covered subject to numbers indicated by MoHFW;
iii. The scheme will be funded through the NDRF Budget
operated by the Health Ministry for this purpose;
iv. Actual payment by the Insurance Company to the beneficiary
will be under certification of the authorised Central State
Government Officials; and
v. The insurance provided under this scheme would be over and
above any other insurance cover being availed by the
beneficiary.
2. This Order is issued with the concurrence of Integrated Finance
Division vide their CD no. 4593.
(Alok Saxena)
Joint Secretary to the Government of India ”
8. An explanatory letter dated 03.04.2020 was addressed to all
stakeholders to dispel any notion of limited coverage while informing
them that the scheme benefits were inclusive of healthcare providers. It
was intended to encourage doctors to come forward without a sense of
insecurity about their health or that of their families. The relevant extract
of the explanatory letter is extracted below:
rd
“ Dated 03 April, 2020
Dear All,
In continuation of letters by Secretary, MoHFW (D.O. No.
Z.21020/16/2020- PH, dated 30th March 2020), addressed to all the
Chief Secretaries/Administrators of the States/UTs and the Heads of
all the Associations of Doctors/Healthcare providers regarding
'Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health
Workers Fighting COVID-19', you are requested to kindly inform all
such health care providers through various mediums like SMS,
whatsapp, e-mail etc. in local language about their inclusion under
Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health
Page 7 of 25
Workers Fighting COVID-19 in line with the enclosed order regarding
this scheme.
The claim Form-I (Personal Accident Insurance Claim Form for loss of
life due to COVID19) and Form-II (Personal Accident Insurance Claim
Form for accidental loss of life on account of COVID-19 related duty)
for the above scheme detailing the procedure, claim certifying
authority and documents to be submitted along with claim form is also
attached for your reference and disbursal.
I request you to give more publicity to this initiative to instill a sense of
security among healthcare providers. In case of any clarifications, Dr.
Manohar Agnani, JS (RCH) may be contacted by the States / UTs at
agnanim@ias.nic.in . ”
9. To provide further clarity on the eligibility of the beneficiaries under
the PMGKY-Program, a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) was also
released, elaborating on the coverage under the scheme, time duration,
who should to pay the premium, procedure to follow, and the documents
required to avail the benefits under the scheme. Answers to the FAQs
make it clear that it PMGKY-Package covers a variety of private
healthcare workers if their services were ‘requisitioned by States’. The
relevant portion of the FAQs is extracted below:
“ Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for
Health Workers Fighting COVID-19
FAQ’s
Question 1: What does this Scheme cover?
This accident insurance scheme covers;
Loss of life due to COVID19, and
Accidental death on account of COVID-19 related duty.
Question 2: What is the definition of Accident?
An accident is sudden, unforeseen and involuntary event caused by
external, visible and violent means.
Question 3: Who all are covered under the scheme?
Public healthcare providers including healthcare community providers
health workers, who may have to be in direct contact and care of
COVID 19 patients and who may be at risk of being impacted by this.
Page 8 of 25
Private hospital staff and retired /volunteer /local urban bodies/
contracted /daily wage /ad hoc/outsourced staff requisitioned by
States/ Central hospitals/ autonomous hospitals of Central/States/UTs,
AIIMS and INIs/ hospital of Central Ministries can also be drafted for
COVID 19 related responsibilities.
Question 4: Who can be a volunteer under this scheme?
Volunteers are those who are drafted by the Government Official
authorized by Central/State/ UT Government for care and may have
come in direct contact of the COVID 19 patient
Question 5: Who are ‘Private persons’ under this scheme?
Private persons are those who are engaged by both public & private
health care institutions/organization through an agency and were
deployed /drafted for care and may have come in direct contact of the
COVID-19 patient (with the proof that the service of the agencies were
engaged by the institution/organization).
Question 6: When does insurance coverage policy begins and ends?
The duration of the policy is for a period of 90 days, starting from
March 30, 2020.
Question 7: Is there any age-limit for health workers under this
scheme? There’s no age limit for this scheme.
Question 8: Is individual enrolment required?
Individual enrolment is not required.
Question 9: Whether an individual is required to pay any premium to
be eligible under the scheme?
The entire amount of premium for this scheme is being borne by the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.
Question 10: What is the benefit available to the insured persons?
INR 50 LAKHS will be paid to the claimant of the insured person.
Question 11: Is COVID-19 laboratory test mandatory for claiming the
benefit?
Laboratory report certifying positive medical test is required for loss of
life on account of COVID-19. However, it is not required in case of
Accidental loss of life on account of COVID-19 related duty .
Question 12: Whether expenses incurred on treatment or during
quarantine are covered under the scheme?
Any type of expenses related to treatment or quarantine is not
covered.
Question 13: If a person is having another Personal accident policy or
life insurance policy, what is the effect of the same on claim under this
policy?
Page 9 of 25
The benefit/claim under this policy is in addition to the amount payable
under any other policies.
Question 14: Documents required to claim benefits under this
scheme? a. In case of Loss of life due to COVID19 following
documents are required:
I. Claim form duly filled and signed by the nominee/claimant.
II. Identity proof of Deceased (Certified copy)
III. Identity proof of the Claimant (Certified copy)
IV. Proof of relationship between the Deceased and the Claimant
(Certified copy)
V. Laboratory Report certifying having tested Positive for COVID-19
(in Original or Certified copy)
VI. Death summary by the Hospital where death occurred (in case
death occurred in hospital) (Certified copy).
VII. Death Certificate (in Original)
VIII. Certificate by the Healthcare Institution/ organization/office that
the deceased was an employee of /engaged by the institution
and was deployed/drafted for care and may have come in direct
contact of the COVID-19 patient. For community health care
workers, the Certificate should be from Medical Officer of
Primary Health Centre (PHC) that ASHA/ASHA Facilitator was
drafted for work related to COVID-19.
”
10. On 08/09.05.2020, the Director of Medical Education & Research
(‘DMER’), Respondent No. 3 herein, issued an order directing all
registered doctors of homoeopathy and Ayurved to make their services
available for the COVID-19 cure. The said letter was also issued to the
Dr. Surgade, late husband of appellant no. 3. The relevant extract of the
said order is as follows:
“ DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH
Govt. Dental College & Hospital Building,
St. George's Hospital Compound, Near V.T., Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400001
No. DMER/COVID-19/RMP's/MCIM/262/2020/A
Date: 09.05.2020
NOTIFICATION
To,
ALL R.M.P’s
Registered in MCIM (only Ayurved faculty)
Page 10 of 25
Sub: Utilization of services of Registered R.M.P’s in MCIM (Only
Ayurved Faculty) for COVID-19 Patients in Mumbai and suburban
district-
Ref.: 1. The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897;
2. The Disaster Management Act, 2005;
3. The Maharashtra Essential Service Maintenance (Amendment)
Act, 2011;
4. The Mumbai Nursing Home Registration (Amendment) Act,
2006
5. The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short B.P.T. Act)
As you are aware, Nation is facing COVID-19 pandemic. The State and
Central Government is taking every precaution to fight against this
deadly viral infection In Mumbai city, the outbreak of COVID-19 is
spreading very fast as compared to other parts of the State. Hence the
State Government has taken rigorous steps towards Prevention,
Control and Treatment of COVID-19 patient.
Whereas the Government of Maharashtra, in exercise of the powers
conferred under Section 2 3. & 4 of the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897
has framed Regulations for Prevention, Control and Treatment of
COVID-19 under No. corona 2020/CR/58/Aarogya-5, dated 13th March
2020.
And where Director of Medical Education and Research, has been
declared as "Empowered Officer" & is empowered to take such
measures as are necessary to prevent the outbreak of COVID-19 or
spread thereof within his respective jurisdiction,
I Dr. T.P. Lahane, in the larger public interest and in exercise of the
powers conferred upon me request you as follows:
that your services are required for the prevention and treatment of
COVID-19 patient at least for 15 days. You shall therefore convey your
willingness and place of choice where you would like to render your
services to https://forms.gle/ucfYQB7s2pwBVDL98 within 3 days. Non-
attendance of the duty will be considered as breach of Hippocratic Oath
that we administered at the time of obtaining degree and action will be
initiated according to the provisions of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
and other Acts referred above.
(Dr. T. P. Lahane)
Director,
Medical Education & Research, Mumbai ”
11. Facts: The facts relevant to the appeal are that, husband of
appellant no. 3, Late Dr. B S Surgade, was a medical practitioner
Page 11 of 25
running a private medical clinic. It was contended on behalf of appellant
no. 3 that her husband Dr. Surgade was directed to keep his clinic open
as per the NMMC notice dated 31.03.2020 reproduced above, and his
services were also requisitioned by the communication dated 09.05.2020
extracted above.
12. Dr. Surgade was infected and tested positive for COVID-19
infection on 08.06.2020, and succumbed to the infection on 10.06.2020.
Appellant no. 3 applied to the insurance company, respondent No. 6,
seeking insurance benefits under the PMGKY-Package. However, by
letter dated 07.09.2020 Joint Director, Medical Services, communicated
to Medical Health Officer of the corporation rejecting the claim on three
grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the late Dr Surgade was carrying out
a private practice and hence his next of kin was ineligible for the benefit
under the scheme. Secondly, that Dr Surgade’s dispensary was not a
COVID-19 designated dispensary, and thirdly, that Dr Surgade’s services
were not requisitioned. The relevant portions of the order dated
07.09.2020, containing the reasons for the denial of insurance benefit,
are extracted below:
“ To,
Medical Health Officer,
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
Sub: - Covid-19 infected/Officers who died in the accident
/Employee nomination for insurance claim sanction under PM
Garib Kalyan Package deceased Dr. Bhaksar Surgade, Private
Medical Professional A-1002, Satyam Imperialites, Plot-2, Sector-
22, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai 400701
Page 12 of 25
MangirishRangnekar <drmangerish@gmail.com>
Ref: - 1) Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi order
dt.28.03.2020
2) Government Ltr. No. Carona2020/P.K. 84/Health-5, dt.11 April,2020
3) Mr. Mangirish Regnekar Email dt. 19.08.2020
4) 4) This office letter Out. No. SAS/Director room/Prime minister poor
welfare package/Insurance/ Perfect Proposal/7623-29/2020, dt.
20.08.2020
5) Your letter No. N.M.M.P./Health/9504/2020, dated 01.09.2020.
Above mentioned matter reference no. 1 and 2, treatment of patients
related to Covid-19 diseases by Central Government, investigating
officers providing all types of health services and employees under this
package Rs. 50 lakh insurance cover is for the first 90 days.
Accordingly, in case of covid infection and death under this package,
amount of Rs 50 lakh will be provided through the accident insurance
scheme of New India Assurance Company for the families of the
officers and employees providing health services. This insurance cover
will be available to all those involved in the investigation and treatment
of COVID - 19 infestation. This includes private hospital staff / retired
staff / contract staff / salaried staff / staff provided by external agencies,
Asha, Anganwadi staff, Central State Local Self Government
Institutions etc. In order to get this sum assured to the beneficiaries, it is
necessary for the concerned State or Central Government to certify that
the death of the insured was due to COVID-19 obstruction and related
to this work. Under Section 2 of Section 2, the Director, Health Services
has been declared as the competent authority to certify the application
filed under the State and submit it to the insurance company.
According to Reference No.3 the deceased Dr. Bhaskar Surgade in our
jurisdiction, Private medical professional, Navi Mumbai the office
received an email about him. Accordingly, reference No. 4, the
information was sought from us about the services of private Medical
professional deceased Dr. Bhaskar Surgade in this case,
With regard to reference No.5, deceased Dr. Bhaskar Surgade, a
private medical professional, was serving in his own private hospital.
His service has not been acquired by Navi Mumbai Municipal
Corporation. Also the hospital providing the service has not been
acquired as Covid Hospital. Such clear feedback has been submitted to
this office.
Therefore, the late Dr. Bhaskar Surgade's service at first sight reference
No. 1 and 2 respectively not included in the terms and conditions of the
said scheme, it will not be possible to send their insurance proposal for
further action.
(Dr. Nandkumar Deshmukh)
Joint Director, Health Services, (Malaria, Elephantiasis and Waterborne
Diseases) Pune – 1 ”
Page 13 of 25
13. It is against the above-referred order denying the claim of the
appellant no. 3, that Writ Petition No. 93840/2020 was filed by appellant
no. 3 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, inter alia, praying
for:
“ a) That this Court be pleased be exercise its jurisdiction under
Constitution of India and issue writ or direction calling for the record and
proceedings from the office of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 and after
examining the validity, legality and propriety and correctness be given
order and or direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 4 to quash and set
aside the Impugned Order annexed as Exhibit- "O" and allow the claim
of the Petitioner that annexed as Exhibit-"J".
b) The Court be pleased to give an order and or direction to the
respondent No.6 - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to immediately
disburse the claim of the Petitioner annexed as Exhibit- "J" in time
bound schedule.
c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the writ petition be pleased
to direct the respondents except respondent No.6 to file their respective
affidavit in respect of claim of the Petitioner. ”
14. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the order impugned
before us. After rejection of appellant’s claim, the Principal Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra, communicated to the Secretary,
Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, dated
01.10.2020, requesting the Union to extend the benefits of insurance
coverage to all private practitioners. The letter was responded to by the
Deputy Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India, on 15.10.2020 clarifying as under:
“ Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter No. Corona-2020/CR430/Aa5
dated 01.10.2020 regarding the subject mentioned above and to
state the following:-
(i) PMGKP: Insurance Scheme for Health workers fighting COVID-19
was launched w.e.f. 30.03.2020 to provide comprehensive personal
accident cover of Rs. 50 lakh to public healthcare providers,
including community health workers, who may have to be in direct
Page 14 of 25
contact and care of COVID-19 patients and who may be at risk of
being impacted by this.
(ii) On account of the unprecedented situation, private hospital staff/
retired/volunteer/ local urban bodies/contract/daily wage/ ad-
hoc/outsourced staff requisitioned by States/Central
hospitals/autonomous hospitals of Central/States/UTs, AIIMS
&INIS/hospitals of Central Ministries can also be drafted for
COVID19 related responsibilities. These cases are also covered
under the scheme subject to fulfilment of the following conditions -
(a) They should have been drafted by the States/ Central
hospitals/ autonomous hospitals of Central/ States/ UTs, AIIMS &
INIS/hospitals of Central Ministries for COVID 19 related
responsibilities.
(b) They should have been working as a front-line health workers,
who may have to be in direct contact and care of COVID-19
patients and who may be at risk of being impacted by this.
(c) The loss of life is due to COVID-19 or accidental death on
account of COVID-19 related duty.
2. In view of the above, no other group of healthcare workers other
than those mentioned under (i) & (ii) above, can be included under
PMGKP: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19. ”
15. High Court placed great emphasis on the words ‘drafted’ and
‘requisitioned’ for ‘COVID-19 related responsibilities’ which appear in the
letter dated 15.10.2020 and similar wordings in the FAQs to the scheme.
Reading these documents, the High Court came to the conclusion that,
while private medical practitioners fall under the ambit of the Insurance
Scheme, claims for insurance must necessarily establish that the
services of the deceased medical professional were requisitioned in
relation to COVID-19-related duty. The relevant portion of the impugned
order is as under:
“21. In order to demonstrate that Dr. Surgade’s services were
requestioned, the Petitioner has placed paramount reliance on the NMMC
Notice dated 31st March, 2020. Therefore, we propose to analyse the
NMMC Notice reproduced hereinabove. By this notice, the NMMC called
upon inter alia Dr. Surgade to explain why his private dispensary was
kept closed during the lock down. It stated that despite earlier Orders, Dr.
Page 15 of 25
Surgade’s dispensary was kept closed. Resultantly, the NMMC Notice
came to be issued calling upon Dr. Surgade to keep open his dispensary
after following the prescribed measures for social distancing etc. In our
opinion, a plain reading of this NMMC Notice cannot be construed as a
notice requisitioning Dr. Surgade’s services for the specific purpose of
treating COVID-19 patients and/or working in a COVID-19 centre /
hospital. There is a difference between specifically requisitioning / drafting
services and directing private practitioners to not keep their clinic closed.
In the present case, this distinction is evident from the record. The intent
and object of the NMMC Notice was to encourage medical practitioners to
keep open their dispensaries which were otherwise closed due to the fear
of COVID-19. This notice did not mandate that the said dispensaries are
to be kept open for COVID-19. As opposed to this letter, the Medical
Education & Research, Mumbai’s circular dated 8th May, 2020
specifically stated “that your services are required for the prevention and
treatment of COVID-19 patient atleast for 15 days”. Clearly therefore, the
circular dated 8th May, 2020 was a specific requisition within the meaning
of the Scheme and not the NMMC Notice dated 31st March, 2020. We do
not agree with the Petitioner’s reliance on the words “prevention,
containment measures in order to prevent the spread of Covid-19”. The
NMMC Notice has to be read as a whole and not in isolation. Resultantly,
we hold that the NMMC Notice would not amount to a requisition for the
purposes of the Scheme. Resultantly, the question of estoppel applying
would not arise. As stated earlier, Dr. Surgade had not responded to the
notification /circular dated 8th May, 2020 by offering/giving his services as
requested therein.
22. We now consider the overwhelming evidence produced by the
Respondents explicitly demonstrating that Dr. Surgade’s services were
not requisitioned for the purposes of treating COVID-19 patients and/or
working in a COVID-19 centre/hospital:
i. The Respondents have pleaded before us on oath that Dr.
Surgade’s services were not requisitioned;
ii. The Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Turbhe has submitted a
report dated 21st August, 2020 stating that the information with
respect to Dr. Surgade’s services being requestioned are not available
and instead; he was carrying out his private practice;
iii. Following the aforesaid, the report dated 1st September, 2020
issued by the Medical Officer of Health, NMMC categorically stated
that Dr. Surgade’s services were neither requisitioned by NMMC for
COVID-19 related responsibilities nor was his clinic requisitioned as a
COVID-19 hospital;
iv. NMMC has addressed a letter dated 1st September, 2020 also
stating that Dr. Surgade’s services were not requisitioned by NMMC.
23. In view of the aforesaid overwhelming correspondence, we would be
required to accept the Respondents’ contention and assertion that Dr.
Surgade’s services were not requisitioned as mandated under the
Scheme and therefore, the Petitioner cannot now avail of the Scheme. As
opposed to the aforesaid documentary record produced by the
Page 16 of 25
Respondents, the Petitioner has, barring the NMMC Notice, been unable
to bring on record any documentary proof to establish that Dr. Surgade’s
services were availed for the purpose of treating and/or in relation to
COVID-19. As a result, we hold that Dr. Surgade’s services were not
requisitioned as required under the Scheme and therefore, the Scheme
would be inapplicable in the present matter.
24. Considering that Dr. Surgade’s services were not requisitioned as
mandated under the Scheme, we are unable to extend the applicability of
the Scheme to persons who fall outside the ambit thereof. Resultantly, no
relief can be granted to the Petitioner. This being so, we also find no merit
in the contention that Dr. Surgade duly completed the AYUSH training for
COVID-19 preparedness, response and containment. The completeness
or otherwise of AYUSH training bears no relevance to the applicability of
the Scheme.
(…)
26. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.”
16. Taking into account the requirement of ‘requisitioning’, the High
Court concluded that the appellant’s claim under the insurance policy is
unsubstantiated as Mr. Surgade’s services were not requisitioned.
st
Referring to NMMC notice dated 31 March, 2020, the High Court drew
a distinction between specific requisitioning/drafting of services and
directing private practitioners not to keep their clinic closed and
concluded that:
a) The purpose of NMMC notice is only to encourage medical
practitioners to keep open their dispensaries, which were
otherwise closed due to fear of COVID-19.
b) The notice does not mandate that dispensaries be kept open
for COVID-19.
c) The notice called upon Dr. Surgade to explain why his
private dispensary was kept closed during lockdown despite
orders. Resultantly, the notice calls upon Dr. Surgade to
Page 17 of 25
keep the dispensary open after following the prescribed
measures.
d) As opposed to the 31st March, 2020 notice, circulars dated
8th May-9th May, 2020 specifically requisition the services
within the meaning of the scheme.
e) However, Dr. Surgade did not respond to the circular dated
8th May, 2020 and did not offer or give his services
requisitioned.
17. On the basis of the material on record, the High Court dismissed
the Writ Petition relying on the following evidences, which in High Court’s
view established conclusively that Dr. Surgade’s services were not
requisitioned;
(i) Affidavit filed on behalf of the Government indicating that the
services of Dr. Surgade were not requisitioned.
st
(ii) Report dated 21 August, 2020, of Medical Officer Primary
Health Centre, Turbhe, stating that there is no evidence that
Dr. Surgade’s services were requisitioned.
st
(iii) Report dated 1 September, 2020, issued by Medical Officer
NMMC categorically stating that Dr. Surgade’s services were
neither requisitioned by NMMC nor was his clinic a
requisitioned medical facility.
st
(iv) Letter dated 1 September, 2020 of NMMC stating that Dr.
Surgade’s services were not requisitioned.
Page 18 of 25
(v) The Ayush training for Covid-19 preparedness of Dr.
Surgade has no relevance to the applicability of the scheme.
18. We heard Dr. Pradeep Arora, appellant no. 1-in person on behalf of
all the appellants and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. Additional Solicitor
General for the respondent. At the time of reserving our judgment, we
had conveyed to the stakeholders that we will examine the appeal only
to the extent of interpreting the policy under PMGKY-Package and to see
if there is requisition of services of appellant no. 3’s husband under the
Act and the Regulation and will not undertake a factual inquiry in relation
to the individual claims.
19. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG, argues that the purpose of the
NMMC notice issued under the provisions of the Prevention and
Containment of COVID-19 Regulations 2020, directing hospitals and
dispensaries to remain operational, was to ensure the continuity of
essential healthcare services and to prevent disruption of routine
medical care. Submitting so, Ms. Bhati argued that the impugned order
was well-reasoned and does not warrant any interference. Ld. ASG also
brought to our notice that the insurance cover under PMGKY-Package is
over and above other insurance policies that cover life and provide
rehabilitation and restitution.
Page 19 of 25
20. As there is no prescribed procedure for requisitioning services of
doctors or other medical professionals, and the High Court came to the
conclusion that there is no document, letter or material evidencing such
requisitioning, we have to decide the question as to how requisitioning of
services can be inferred and concluded. This is necessary because a
claim for insurance under PMGKY-Package necessitates requisition of
service and the consequent loss of life while performing COVID-19-
related duties. In the circumstances, requisitioning has to be seen and
assessed in the context of the situation that prevailed, coupled with the
applicable laws and the executive actions that were resorted to.
21. Circumstances that prevailed at the dawn of 2020, required
immediate implementation of certain compelling measures to control and
handle the ill effects of the pandemic, and this included invocation of the
Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and issuance of necessary Rules and
Regulations for implementation of Covid-19-related measures. Insofar as
the State of Maharashtra is concerned, Prevention and Containment of
Covid-19 Regulation 2020 were issued, inter alia providing that the
Collector or the Municipal Commissioner shall be competent to take
measures, such as sealing of the geographical area, requisition, if
necessary, staff of Government Departments and organizations. It also
provides that “if required the Collector, Municipal Commissioner may
requisition the services of any other person also” .
Page 20 of 25
22. Regulation 11 declares that any person found to be violating the
provisions of the regulations will be punished under the provisions of the
Indian Penal Code. Therefore, there is no gainsaying about the fact that
circumstances in which the country was reeling under the COVID-19
pandemic required States and their instrumentalities to take immediate
measures. This included requisitioning and drafting of doctors and other
healthcare professionals as an emergent measure, as many as possible
and as early as State can.
23. It is in the above referred context that, invoking powers under the
Act and the 2020 Regulation, the Commissioner, Navi Mumbai issued
notice dated 31.03.2020 calling upon Dr. Surgade to explain the reason
for not keeping the hospital/dispensary open during the lockdown period.
This notice clearly refers to the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the
powers thereunder (Sections 2, 3 and 4). Intimating Dr. Surgade that
vide order no. 123/2020 he was already directed to keep his
hospital/dispensary open, the notice dated 31.03.2020 directs and
orders Dr. Surgade to open the hospital/dispensary immediately, failing
which, the Corporation will be forced to file an FIR under Section 188 of
the IPC.
24. Taking into account the live situation that existed as on March
2020, coupled with the invocation of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
Page 21 of 25
and the Regulations 2020 thereunder, there cannot be any doubt about
the compelling situation in which the Governments and their
instrumentalities requisitioned services of doctors and other health
professionals to be on the frontline for containing the fast-spreading
infection. 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 Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
and the Regulation 2020 for implementing immediate measures. Further,
powers under the Act and Regulation 2020 were also exercised while
issuing the order dated 31.03.2020 issued in the nature of show cause
notice to Late Dr. Surgade. 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.
25. The truth and reality of requisitioning is also evident from the
decisions of the government, made almost at the same time. In the
same month, i.e., in March 2020, the Finance Ministry issued the press
release dated 26.03.2020, and this was followed by the declaration of
the PMGKY-Package on 28.03.2020. The FAQs and the clarificatory
letter dated 03.04.2020 issued thereafter also prove that large number of
doctors and healthcare professionals were requisitioned, and this
Page 22 of 25
compelling measure is not confined to Government employees, but also
extended to private doctors and hospitals. The insurance cover under
PMGKY-Package was extended to all those who were requisitioned by
law and the executive actions under the compelling circumstances.
26. In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to take a
narrow view of the intent and application of Regulation 14.03.2020 and
the NMMC notice dated 31.03.2020 to conclude, as the High Court did,
that there was no requisition.
27. The country has not forgotten the situation that prevailed at the
onset of Covid-19, when every citizen contributed in some measure,
despite fear of infection or imminent death. That is also a moment of
pride and recognition of the strength of character and discipline that our
people demonstrated when circumstances demanded it.
28. The courage and sacrifice of by our doctors remain indelible, as
five years following the pandemic that spared us, we are now called
upon to interpret the laws and regulations enacted for urgent requisition
of doctors and health professionals to safeguard public from the
seemingly overwhelming onslaught of Covid 2019. We have no
hesitation in concluding that invocation of laws and Regulations were
intended to leave no stone unturned in requisitioning the doctors and the
insurance scheme was equally intended to assure doctors and health
Page 23 of 25
professionals in the front line that the country is with them. In this view of
the matter, we are not inclined to take the view that there was no
requisitioning of the doctors and medical professionals.
29. Once we have decided that there was ‘requisition’, the applicability
of the insurance policy will then depend upon actual evidence. Whether
the doctor or healthcare professional has, and in fact, presented and
offered his or her services in furtherance of COVID-19-related
responsibilities is a matter of evidence. If there is clear evidence that the
deceased lost his life while performing COVID-19-related duties, the
policy will have to be applied. We have already indicated that our enquiry
is confined to determining the question as to whether there is ‘requisition’
of the services of doctors and health professionals. We are not
examining the credibility of individual claims. It is for the concerned
offices or agencies to look into individual claims on the basis of clear
evidence.
30. In view of the above, in partial modification of the judgment and
order of the High Court, we declare that;
a) 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,
Page 24 of 25
explanatory communication to the PMGKY policy, and the FAQs
released.
b) Individual claims for insurance made as per the PMGKY-Package
will be considered and decided in accordance with the law and on
the basis of the evidence. The onus to prove that a deceased lost
his life while performing a COVID-19-related duty is on the
claimant, and the same needs to be established on the basis of
credible evidence.
31. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
Pending applications including the application for
intervention/impleadment are also disposed of.
………………………………....J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
………………………………....J.
[R. MAHADEVAN]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 11, 2025
Page 25 of 25