Five years after the COVID-19 pandemic upended lives and healthcare systems across the country, the Supreme Court has delivered long-awaited relief to families of doctors who died while treating patients during the crisis, ruling that their kin cannot be denied insurance benefits merely because there was no formal government requisition letter.
In a judgement delivered last week, the apex court held that the families of government as well as private doctors who lost their lives while discharging COVID-related duties are entitled to the ₹50 lakh insurance cover under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana Package for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19 (PMGKY-Package). The Court made it clear that insisting on proof of a ‘specific requisition’ of service would defeat the very purpose of the welfare scheme announced at the height of the pandemic.
In the order, the bench of justice PS Narasimha and justice R Mahadevan says, “The courage and sacrifice by our doctors remain indelible...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 on 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...If there is clear evidence that the deceased lost his life while performing Covid-19-related duties, the policy will have to be applied.”
The ruling came in the case of Kiran Bhaskar Surgade, whose husband, Dr Bhaskar Surgade, a private medical practitioner in Navi Mumbai, died of COVID-19 in June 2020. Like thousands of doctors across the country, Dr Surgade continued to treat patients even as fear, uncertainty and a shortage of protective equipment defined the early months of the pandemic.
When his widow applied for the PMGKY insurance payout, her claim was rejected on the grounds that he was not formally requisitioned by the state for COVID-19 duty. The Bombay High Court upheld that rejection, holding that a municipal notice directing clinics to remain open was a regulatory measure and not a requisition of services.
Setting aside that view, the apex court took a broader and more humane interpretation of the law, rooted in the extraordinary circumstances that prevailed in March 2020. The judges noted that governments across the country had invoked the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, and the regulations framed under it to compel doctors and healthcare professionals—both in public and private practice—to remain on the frontline.
The Court observed that individual letters of appointment or requisition were neither feasible nor realistic during a fast-spreading public health emergency. Municipal notices that mandated clinics to remain operational, backed by the threat of criminal action for non-compliance, amounted in law to a requisition of services. In such a situation, the Court said, it would be ‘rather simplistic’ to deny insurance claims solely because a specific requisition order was not issued to a particular doctor.
Recalling the early days of the pandemic, the bench remarked that the country had not forgotten the fear and uncertainty that gripped society, nor the courage shown by doctors who continued to serve despite the risk of infection and death. The judges say the insurance scheme was intended to assure healthcare workers that the nation stood with them at a time when they were being compelled by law and circumstance to protect public health.
The Supreme Court also addressed concerns about misuse of the scheme, clarifying that while the requirement of a formal requisition letter could not be insisted upon, claimants would still have to establish through credible evidence that the doctor died while performing COVID-19-related duties. The onus of proof, the Court says, would remain with the family making the claim and each case would need to be examined on its own facts.
The judgement settles a long-standing ambiguity over the status of private medical practitioners during the pandemic, many of whom worked under municipal and state directives without formal government appointments. According to data cited before the Court, hundreds of doctors lost their lives during successive waves of COVID-19, leaving behind families who have since struggled for recognition and financial security.
By recognising what it termed a ‘deemed’ or constructive requisition of services, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the state’s promise under the PMGKY insurance scheme extends to all doctors who were compelled to serve during the pandemic, regardless of whether they practised in government hospitals or private clinics. For families like that of Dr Surgade, the ruling is not just a legal victory, but a belated acknowledgement of a sacrifice made in one of the country’s darkest hours.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No16860 of 2021 Date: 11 December 2025)
