Kin of doctors deceased during COVID need not prove specific requisition of service to claim insurance under PMGKY: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a kin of a deceased health worker is not required to submit proof of 'specific requisition' of service of the concerned health worker during COVID-19 in order to avail insurance by Union government under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana Package: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID-19 (PMGKY-Package)..The PMGKY-Package scheme had assured the next of kin of eligible healthcare workers an insurance cover of ₹50 lakh.Considering the situation that prevailed after March 2020 (when COVID broke out), there cannot be any doubt about the compelling situation in which the governments requisitioned services of doctors and other health professionals to contain the virus, a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan said. 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 said."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," it reasoned..However, the Court also held that individual claims for insurance under the PMGKY-Package will have to considered and decided in accordance with the law and on the basis of the evidence. Whether the doctor or healthcare professional presented and offered his or her services in furtherance of COVID-19-related responsibilities is a matter of evidence, the Court explained"The onus to prove that a deceased lost his life while performing a COVID-19-related duty is on the claimant, and the same needs to be established on the basis of credible evidence," it said..The Court delivered the ruling while setting aside a Bombay High Court decision that had rejected the plea filed by the wife of a deceased doctor, Dr B Surgade, on the ground that there was no proof that his services had been ‘requisitioned’ for COVID-related duties.However, the top court held that requisitioning had to be assessed in the context of the situation that prevailed, coupled with the applicable laws and the executive actions that were resorted to.In context of Maharashtra, it found that the regulations empowered Collectors and Municipal Commissioners to requisition services of any person. It also noted that the Commissioner of Navi Mumbai had issued a notice to Dr Surgade to explain the reason for not keeping his hospital/dispensary open during the lockdown period."Powers under the [Epidemic Diseases] Act and Regulation 2020 were also exercised while issuing the order dated 31.03.2020 issued in the nature of show cause notice to Late Dr. Surgade. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that there was a “requisition” of doctors and other medical professionals," the Court ruled.Since the Court had confined its examination to determining the question as to whether there is ‘requisition’ of the services of doctors and health professionals, Dr Surgade's case will now have to be considered on the basis of evidence. .However, the Court in the verdict emphasised that while laws and regulations were intended to leave no stone unturned in requisitioning the doctors, the insurance scheme was to assure doctors and health professionals in the front line that the country is with them. The courage and sacrifice by our doctors remain indelible, it said.Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati and advocates Shivika Mehra and Ketan Paul appeared for the government..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.