INTRODUCTION
The apex court of the country, in a judgment dated 11 December 2025, set aside the decision of the Bombay High Court that had denied the claim of insurance benefits of Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) to the kin of a private doctor who had succumbed to COVID-19. The Bombay High Court and the local authorities stated that the services of the doctor did not amount to “requisition” by the state and thus, were denied the benefits of PMGKY. However, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan stated that the general notices issued by the municipality, compelling the clinics to be operational, amounted to a requisition of service, availing the benefits of PMGKY to the private doctors.
BACKGROUND
The case arose from the death of Dr. Bhaskar Surgade, a private practitioner in Navi Mumbai, who succumbed to COVID-19 in June 2020. His wife (Appellant No. 3) sought ₹50 Lakh insurance cover under the ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package’ (PMGKY). The claim was rejected by the authorities and later by the Bombay High Court on the ground that the doctor’s services were not explicitly “requisitioned” by a specific government order for COVID-19 duties. The High Court had held that a general municipal notice dated 31.03.2020 directing clinics to stay open was merely a regulation, not a draft of services. Thus, the appellant was not liable for the benefits under the said scheme.
KEY POINTS
- Constructive Requisition.
The Supreme Court examined the draft notice, which provided for penal punishment for the closure of clinics under Section 188 of the IPC (now under Section 223 of BNS). Thus, the notice served as a mandate to the private doctors. It also stated that a requisition order cannot be sent to an individual, and thus, a notice under the municipal authorities would be deemed as a requisition by law.
- Contextual interpretation.
The court highlighted the welfare schemes under PMGKY. It rightly recognised the role of the doctors during the pandemic. Thus, this ensured a balance between individual rights and the intent of the act by having a broader scope.
- Balance between the beneficiary and the law.
While the court broadened the scope of the scheme, it also laid the onus of proof on the appellants to prove the death of the doctor while working during the pandemic. Thus, it ensured that there would not be any misuse of the law and the scheme at hand.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
This judgment settles the ambiguity regarding the status of private medical practitioners during the pandemic. By granting “deemed requisition” to the notice of the municipality, the Supreme Court has given an opportunity for the families of deceased private doctors by granting them the insurance benefit under PMGKY, provided they can furnish evidence of duty-related death, overturning the stricter standard previously applied by the High Court.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court declared that the notice dated 31.03.2020 amounted to a requisition under the PMGKY scheme. This decision reinforces that the state’s assurance to frontline workers extends to those compelled by law to serve, regardless of whether they held a formal government appointment letter.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: Sharanya M
