Supreme Court: “Nation Can’t Forget COVID-19 Heroes” — PMGKY Insurance Coverage Explained
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that the State’s power to requisition medical services under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the Maharashtra “Prevention & Containment of COVID-19 Regulations, 2020” was operative from the very onset of the pandemic. Consequently, private medical practitioners could be requisitioned and brought within the ambit of the Centre’s Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19 (PMGKY).
However, the Court made it equally clear that the existence of a requisitioning framework does not result in automatic entitlement to the ₹50 lakh insurance cover. Each claimant must establish, through credible evidence and certification, that the deceased medical professional was requisitioned or drafted for COVID-19 duties and that death occurred during the course of such duty.
Background of the Appeal
The case arose from an appeal filed by the widow of Dr. B.S. Surgade, a private medical practitioner who tested positive for COVID-19 on 8 June 2020 and passed away on 10 June 2020. The PMGKY claim was rejected by State authorities on the ground that his services were neither formally requisitioned nor was his clinic designated as a COVID facility. The Bombay High Court upheld this rejection, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
What the Supreme Court Held
- Requisitioning as law and fact: Reading the Epidemic Diseases Act with the Maharashtra Regulations dated 14 March 2020, the Court held that a valid legal framework existed empowering Collectors and Municipal Commissioners to requisition medical services. The PMGKY order dated 28 March 2020 and subsequent clarifications confirmed coverage for requisitioned private practitioners.
- NMMC Notice (31.03.2020): The Court rejected the High Court’s view that the municipal notice directing clinics to remain open was merely advisory. Given its statutory backing and the threat of prosecution under Section 188 IPC, the notice formed part of the requisitioning mechanism, though it did not substitute individual appointment letters.
- Evidentiary burden: Claimants must prove that the deceased was requisitioned by a competent authority and that death resulted from COVID-19 or an accident arising from COVID-19 duties. The Court declined to substitute judicial fact-finding for the administrative certification process prescribed under PMGKY.
Facts in Brief
- Maharashtra issued COVID containment regulations on 14 March 2020 enabling requisition of services.
- NMMC issued a notice on 31 March 2020 directing dispensaries and hospitals to remain operational during lockdown.
- DMER (Mumbai) issued a circular in May 2020 requiring registered practitioners to make services available.
- Dr. Surgade received these communications, contracted COVID-19, and died in June 2020.
- PMGKY claim was rejected on 7 September 2020; Bombay High Court upheld the rejection.
Court’s Directions and Disposition
The Supreme Court declared that requisitioning of doctors and medical professionals did take place during March–May 2020 and that PMGKY coverage was intended to extend to requisitioned private practitioners. However, it refrained from ordering direct payment and remitted individual claims back to competent administrative authorities for evidence-based adjudication.
Significance of the Judgment
- Protecting the scheme’s object: The Court refused to adopt a hyper-technical interpretation that would defeat the protective intent of the PMGKY scheme during the pandemic.
- Preserving safeguards: It simultaneously upheld the requirement of documentary proof and certification to prevent automatic disbursement of public funds.
Practical Guidance
- Claimants should submit contemporaneous records such as notices, duty registers, correspondence, test reports, and death summaries.
- Authorities and insurers must adopt pragmatic standards acknowledging emergency deployment conditions.
- Courts will intervene on legal interpretation but ordinarily remit factual determination to administrative mechanisms.
Case Details
Case Title: Pradeep Arora & Ors. v. Director, Health Department, Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1420
Bench: Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and R. Mahadevan
Judgment Date: 11 December 2025
By this judgment, the Apex Court reaffirmed that the sacrifice of frontline healthcare workers—public and private alike—must be honored, while ensuring accountability through lawful and evidence-based processes.