0
0
New Delhi — In a landmark verdict that acknowledges the sacrifices of India’s private healthcare workforce during the pandemic, the Supreme Court has ruled that the families of private doctors who died while performing COVID-19 duties cannot be denied the ₹50 lakh insurance compensation on “hyper-technical” grounds.
Setting aside a previous Bombay High Court judgment, the apex court declared that private practitioners are entitled to coverage under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package (PMGKP), even if they did not possess a formal, individual “requisition” order from the government at the time of their service. The ruling is expected to reopen a pathway for hundreds of grieving families whose claims were previously rejected due to bureaucratic technicalities.
The Ruling: Substance Over Form
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan, who emphasized that the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic required a compassionate and practical interpretation of the law.
The bench observed that general government orders issued under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897—which mandated private clinics to remain open—amounted to a “requisition” of services. The court rejected the insurance companies’ argument that a specific, individual letter of appointment was necessary to claim benefits.
“Society will not forgive us if we don’t take care of our doctors and don’t stand for them,” Justice Narasimha remarked during the proceedings. “Merely because they were not in government duty, the assumption that they were making profits and sitting idle is not correct.”
In its written order, the Bench paid tribute to the medical fraternity, noting: “Our doctors and health professionals rose as unwavering heroes, turning challenges into courage.”
The Case That Changed the Precedent
The ruling stems from an appeal filed by the widow of Dr. B.S. Surgade, an Ayurvedic practitioner from Navi Mumbai. Dr. Surgade had kept his clinic open during the strict lockdown in compliance with orders from the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC). He contracted COVID-19 while treating patients and succumbed to the virus in June 2020.
Despite his sacrifice, his widow’s claim for the ₹50 lakh insurance cover was rejected by the New India Assurance Company. The insurer argued that Dr. Surgade was a private practitioner and had not been “specifically requisitioned” for COVID-19 duties by the government, a stance later upheld by the Bombay High Court in 2021.
The Supreme Court dismantled this reasoning, stating that the “regulatory and executive matrix” of the time—which threatened private doctors with prosecution if they closed their clinics—was proof enough that their services were requisitioned by the state.
The Gap: Official vs. Real Mortality Data
This judgment shines a spotlight on the stark disparity between official government records and data compiled by medical associations regarding healthcare worker fatalities.
According to data from the Indian Medical Association (IMA), over 1,596 doctors lost their lives during the first two waves of the pandemic in India. However, Right to Information (RTI) replies from the government indicate that only around 500 families (approximately 31% of the IMA’s estimate) have received the ex-gratia compensation so far.
Dr. J.A. Jayalal, former National President of the IMA, has previously stated that the strict criteria for “requisition” were a major hurdle, leaving many private practitioners—who shouldered a massive burden of outpatient care—without financial protection.
Implications for Claimants
While the judgment removes the technical barrier of “formal requisition,” the Supreme Court clarified that compensation is not automatic. The burden of proof remains on the claimants to demonstrate two key facts with “credible evidence”:
-
The deceased doctor was actively performing medical duties during the relevant period.
-
The death was a direct result of COVID-19 infection contracted during those duties.
“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,” the court noted. This means families must still provide documentation such as lab reports, death certificates, and proof of clinical practice during the lockdown.
A Precedent for Future Crises
Health policy experts suggest this ruling establishes a vital principle for future public health emergencies: that private healthcare resources mobilized by the state must be accorded the same social security protections as public employees.
“This verdict bridges the divide between public and private healthcare warriors,” says Dr. Anant Bhan, a researcher in global health and bioethics. “It affirms that when the state commands private citizens to step into the line of fire for public safety, the state also bears the moral and financial responsibility for their lives.”
Medical Disclaimer
Medical Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered medical or legal advice. Always consult with qualified healthcare professionals or legal experts regarding health-related decisions or insurance claims. The information presented here is based on current research and court judgments, which may evolve as new evidence or legal precedents emerge.
References
-
Press Trust of India (PTI). “Society will not forgive us”: SC on doctors’ insurance claims. October 28, 2025.
-
Live Law. Private Doctors Who Worked During Pandemic & Died Of COVID Eligible Under PM Insurance Scheme: Supreme Court. December 11, 2025.
