In a significant judgment affecting the families of doctors who lost their lives during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court has ruled that notices issued by municipal authorities under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, directing private clinics to remain open, amount to a “requisition” of services. The Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s finding that such notices were merely “encouragement” and held that these executive actions established the eligibility requirement for the ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package’ (PMGKY) insurance scheme.
A Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan partially allowed the appeal filed by the family of a deceased doctor, declaring that the services of doctors were indeed requisitioned by the State. However, the Court clarified that individual claimants must still prove that the deceased lost their life while performing a “COVID-19-related duty.”
Background of the Case
The case arose from the death of Dr. B.S. Surgade, a private medical practitioner in Navi Mumbai, who succumbed to COVID-19 on June 10, 2020. His wife, Appellant No. 3, sought the Rs. 50 Lakh insurance cover under the PMGKY, a scheme announced by the Central Government to provide security to healthcare workers fighting the pandemic.
The claim was rejected by the Joint Director, Health Services, on three grounds:
- Dr. Surgade was a private practitioner.
- His dispensary was not a designated COVID-19 facility.
- His services were not explicitly “requisitioned” by the State.
The rejection relied on the interpretation of the PMGKY scheme, which covers private hospital staff “requisitioned by States/Central hospitals.”
The Bombay High Court dismissed the subsequent Writ Petition, holding that a notice issued by the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) on March 31, 2020, directing Dr. Surgade to keep his dispensary open, was not a “requisition” for COVID-19 duties but merely an order to prevent the closure of routine medical services.
Arguments Before the Court
The Appellants contended that Dr. Surgade was mandated to keep his clinic open by the NMMC notice dated March 31, 2020, under threat of criminal prosecution under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They argued this amounted to requisitioning his services.
The Respondents, represented by Additional Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, argued that the purpose of the NMMC notice was solely “to ensure the continuity of essential healthcare services and to prevent disruption of routine medical care.” They submitted that there was no specific requisition for COVID-19 treatment, and the High Court’s order was well-reasoned.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Supreme Court rejected the “narrow view” taken by the High Court. The Bench observed that the “requisitioning has to be seen and assessed in the context of the situation that prevailed,” referencing the global crisis and the invocation of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.
Referring to the Prevention and Containment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Regulations issued by the Maharashtra Government on March 14, 2020, the Court noted that Regulation 10 empowered the Municipal Commissioner to requisition services of any person.
The Court analyzed the NMMC notice dated March 31, 2020, which specifically invoked the Epidemic Diseases Act and warned of an FIR under Section 188 IPC for non-compliance. The Bench observed:
“Taking into account the live situation that existed as on March 2020, coupled with the invocation of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 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.”
The Court further stated:
“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.”
Dismissing the Respondents’ stance, the Court held:
“We are not inclined to accept the rather simplistic submission that there was no specific requisition and therefore the claim for insurance must fail on this ground alone.”
The Court emphasized that the PMGKY scheme was intended to assure doctors that the country stood with them. The judgment noted:
“The insurance cover under PMGKY-Package was extended to all those who were requisitioned by law and the executive actions under the compelling circumstances.”
Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with a partial modification of the High Court’s order. The Court issued the following declarations:
- Requisition Established: The Court declared that “there is a requisition of services of doctors, and this is evident from the conjoint reading of provisions of the Act, the Maharashtra Prevention and Containment of Covid-19 Regulations 2020, the NMMC Order dated 31.03.2020, PMGKY-Package Scheme, explanatory communication to the PMGKY policy, and the FAQs released.”
- Onus of Proof: While the general requisition is established, the Court ruled that “Individual claims for insurance… will be considered and decided in accordance with the law and on the basis of the evidence.” The onus remains on the claimant to prove that the deceased “lost his life while performing a COVID-19-related duty.”
The Supreme Court directed the concerned agencies to decide the claims based on credible evidence, without dismissing them solely on the ground of non-requisition.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Pradeep Arora & Ors. v. Director, Health Department, Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors.
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16860 of 2021)
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1420
- Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan
