‘Unwavering heroes’: SC hails doctors, sets aside Bombay HC order on Covid insurance claim

The doctor, B S Surgade, was asked to keep his clinic open during the pandemic and finally succumbed to the infection on June 10, 2020. His wife applied for insurance benefits under the package but this was rejected on three grounds—firstly, that the late Surgade was carrying out a private practice and hence his next of kin was ineligible for the benefit under the scheme; secondly, that his dispensary was not a COVID-19 designated one; and thirdly, that his services were not “requisitioned” by the government.

The Supreme Court, however, chose to interpret “requisition” differently.

The bench pointed out that the circumstances that prevailed in 2020 required “immediate implementation of certain compelling measures to control and handle the ill effects of the pandemic”, and this included the 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 organisations. It also provides that if required the collector, municipal commissioner may requisition the services of any other person also”, the bench said.

The Supreme Court said that invoking the powers under the Act and the 2020 Regulation, the Commissioner, Navi Mumbai, issued a notice on March 31, 2020, calling upon Dr Surgade to explain the reason for not keeping the hospital or 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…immediately, failing which, the Corporation will be forced to file an FIR under Section 188 of the IPC,” the court added.

The court concluded that this would amount to requisition of their service.

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

The judgement said, “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 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 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,” it added.

The court said that, in view of this, “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.”

The bench said, “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.”

Referring to how the onset of COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 was “unprecedented in its global sweep and consequence”, the Supreme Court said, “While COVID-19 pandemic exposed an acute systemic fragility within the global healthcare sector, highlighted lack of preparedness and strained the capacity of health professionals, our doctors and health professionals rose as unwavering heroes, turning challenges into courage. Indian Medical Association’s COVID-19 registry records 748 doctors’ deaths in the first wave and hundreds more in subsequent waves; one estimate noted around 798 doctors lost during the second wave alone.”

It added, “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-19.”

“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 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,” it further said.