Home > Recent Judgements > Supreme Court Sets Aside Bombay High Court Ruling, Makes Private Doctors Eligible for PM COVID Insurance Scheme
Dec 11- 2025
Supreme Court Sets Aside Bombay High Court Ruling, Makes Private Doctors Eligible for PM COVID Insurance Scheme
PRADEEP ARORA V. DIRECTOR, HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Introduction
In a landmark judgement on Thursday reaffirming the nation’s commitment to its frontline medical workforce, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that families of private doctors who served patients during the COVID-19 pandemic and succumbed to the virus are eligible for compensation under the ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19’ (PMGKP). “Families of doctors who sacrificed during Covid period cannot be told there is no compensation”, the Court said.
The verdict decisively overturns the Bombay High Court’s earlier decision, which had restricted the scheme’s applicability to only those medical professionals formally requisitioned by government authorities. Through this ruling, the Supreme Court has expanded the protective umbrella of the scheme, honouring the contributions of all doctors, whether public or private who stood on the frontline during one of the greatest health crises of the century.
Background: Understanding the PMGKP Insurance Scheme
The Government of India launched the PMGKP Insurance Scheme at the onset of the pandemic to provide a ₹50 lakh insurance cover to health workers doctors, nurses, support staff, ASHA workers, and others who died due to COVID-19 while engaged in pandemic related duties.
The scheme became a lifeline for the families of many healthcare workers who lost their lives while battling the virus. However, its interpretation became contentious in cases involving private medical practitioners, particularly those who continued to treat patients outside government hospitals and without formal “requisition orders”.
One such case involved DR. B.S. SURGADE, an Ayurvedic practitioner from Navi Mumbai, who died of COVID-19 in June 2020. His widow’s claim for compensation was rejected by the insurance company, citing the absence of a formal government requisition.
Bombay High Court’s Approach
On 9 March 2021, the Bombay High Court upheld the insurer’s denial, holding:
- The PMGKP scheme applied only to health workers “requisitioned or drafted” by the State for COVID duty.
- As there was no evidence of formal requisition of Dr. Surgade by the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, his family was not entitled to benefits.
- The petitioner had not challenged the scheme’s constitutionality, limiting the scope of judicial review.
This interpretation created a narrow eligibility framework, excluding many private practitioners who voluntarily treated patients during COVID-19, often in extremely hazardous conditions.
Supreme Court Proceedings: A Question of Public Importance
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it quickly evolved into an issue of national significance. The Court noted that thousands of private doctors continued practicing during the pandemic, treating both COVID and non-COVID patients, thereby exposing themselves to infection.
During hearings, Justice Narasimha remarked:
“Society will not forgive us if we don’t take care of our doctors.”
The Court emphasized two critical questions:
- Did the doctor actively render medical services during the pandemic?
- Did the death result from COVID-19 infection contracted during such service?
The bench also stressed that the Central Government must ensure the faithful implementation of its own assurances and that insurers must honour genuine claims.
The Supreme Court’s Judgement
In a monumental ruling, the Supreme Court held that:
- Formal Requisition Not Mandatory
The Court clarified that the pandemic created a de facto requisitioning of medical professionals across the board. Doctors, whether private or public were essential to the nation’s response.
Justice Narasimha observed:
“There was a requisition of doctors as a matter of principle and as per the declaration under the law. Doctors who sacrificed during COVID period cannot be told that compensation won’t be available.”
- Service Rendered During Pandemic Is the Key Criterion
Whether the doctor was working in a government or private set-up is irrelevant. What matters is whether the doctor actively offered medical services during the pandemic.
- Death Must Be Linked to COVID-19
Eligibility is contingent on demonstrating that the doctor died due to COVID-19 contracted during service.
- Individual Claims Will Not Be Decided by the Court
The Court laid down broad principles, leaving specific factual determinations to relevant authorities.
- Bombay High Court’s Judgement Set Aside
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s restrictive interpretation, expanding the scheme’s protection to thousands of families.
Significance of the Judgement
- Broadens Social Security for Healthcare Workers: This ruling ensures that private medical practitioners, who constitute a significant portion of India’s healthcare system, are not left behind.
- Recognizes the Sacrifice of All Doctors: The Court highlighted that –
“Families of doctors who sacrificed during COVID cannot be told there is no compensation.” This sentiment reinforces the moral and constitutional duty of the State to protect those who protect society.
- Ensures Accountability of Insurers: By clarifying broad eligibility criteria, the judgement prevents arbitrary rejection of claims.
- Strengthens Public Trust: The government’s promise of support to frontline workers gets reaffirmed, restoring confidence in public welfare schemes.
- Sets a Legal and Ethical Benchmark: The decision will likely influence future litigation and policymaking concerning healthcare workers and emergency response frameworks.
Implications for Claimants
After this judgement, families of private doctors who died of COVID-19 while treating patients may:
- Submit fresh claims to the designated insurance company.
- Seek review of earlier rejected claims.
- Rely on the Supreme Court’s principles to establish eligibility.
Documentation such as treatment records, clinic logs, telemedicine consultations, and proof of COVID-19 infection will play an important evidentiary role.
Final thoughts
The Supreme Court’s decision in PRADEEP ARORA V. DIRECTOR, HEALTH DEPARTMENT represents a compassionate, pragmatic, and legally sound interpretation of the PMGKP insurance scheme. By acknowledging the indispensable role played by private doctors during the pandemic, the Court has ensured that no family of a fallen medical warrior is denied the dignity of recognition and compensation.
This ruling stands as a tribute to the countless doctors who risked their lives to serve humanity and reaffirms the judiciary’s role as the guardian of both law and conscience.