Sushree Mohanty
The Bombay High Court has refused to grant relief to the widow of a private medical doctor who passed away after suffering from COVID-19.
The court stated that the Rs 50 lakh insurance policy under the Central plan included only those private doctors who were assigned for carrying out their duties in COVID-19 wards.
The two-judge bench comprising of Justices S J Kathawalla and R I Chagla dismissed an appeal documented by Kiran Surgade, a Navi Mumbai resident, who requested for Rs 50 lakh insurance cover under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) on behalf of her husband who passed away subsequent to contracting Covid-19 from a patient at his medical facility.
As per the plea, the petitioner’s husband, Bhaskar Surgade, an Ayurveda specialist, got a notification from the Commissioner of the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC), requesting that he keep his dispensary open and admit COVID-19 patients.
The notification also warned of strict actions against Surgade in the event of failing or neglecting to abide by the order.
The applicant asserted that following the notice, her husband opened his medical facility and began treating patients, including those infected by Covid-19.
Subsequently, he too contracted the virus and passed away.
The petitioner then applied for the Rs 50 lakh compensation under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) scheme. However the plea was turned down on the ground that her husband was not serving in any medical clinic or government medical care and thus was not qualified to avail the benefit.
Advocate Kavita Solunke, representing the Maharashtra Government, contended that the applicant’s service was not ordered and subsequently he would not be eligible for the said insurance scheme.
The Court, in its request, took notice that the insurance cover extended to only those private specialists whose assistance were ordered for Covid-19-related obligations and duties.
The notification issued by the bench additionally emphasized on the fact that the insurance policy guidelines clearly expressed that for a private medical care doctor to be covered under the plan, the individual in question should be drafted or demanded by the state/Centre for Covid-19-related duties.
Further the court stated that “The applicant would be essentially needed to prove that Dr Surgade’s services were demanded/drafted corresponding to Covid-19 obligations by the state/Center to look for application of the Scheme,”
The bench additionally said that the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation notice requested Bhaskar Surgade to keep his centre open and the equivalent cannot be interpreted as a notification ordering his services for the particular reason of treating Covid-19 patients as well as working in a Covid-19 emergency clinic.
“There is a distinction between explicitly ordering/drafting service and guiding private professionals to not keep their facility shut. The goal and object of the NMMC notice was to urge clinical professionals to keep their dispensaries open,” the court commented.
The bench further added that the order issued did not carry out any mandate which required the said dispensaries to be kept open for Covid-19 related duties.
