In a courtroom that still feels the weight of the pandemic years, the Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a significant ruling on what truly counts as “requisitioning” of medical services during COVID-19. The bench heard the appeal filed by the family of late Dr. Bhaskar Surgade, a Navi Mumbai practitioner whose insurance claim under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) had been rejected.
As the order was read out, one could sense a quiet nod across the courtroom-this decision might influence hundreds of similar denials.
Background
The dispute arose after Dr. Surgade died of COVID-19 in June 2020. His widow applied for the ₹50 lakh insurance benefit promised to frontline workers, but authorities rejected the claim, saying his services were “not requisitioned” specifically for COVID duty. The Bombay High Court agreed with this reasoning, focusing heavily on the absence of a direct order drafting him to COVID care.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Insolvency Case Against Dhanlaxmi Electricals, Slams NCLAT for Ignoring
But the Supreme Court took a broader view, reminding everyone of the chaotic early months of 2020 when the epidemic laws were invoked, lockdowns were enforced, and doctors were being asked-sometimes sternly-to keep clinics open.
Court’s Observations
The bench dug deep into the March 2020 landscape, highlighting how governments across India invoked the Epidemic Diseases Act and issued sweeping directions requiring medical facilities to remain operational. One such notice-the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation’s order dated 31 March 2020-directed Dr. Surgade to open his clinic and warned of prosecution if he didn’t comply.
“The bench observed, ‘It is unrealistic to assume that individual requisition letters could be issued when the State was firefighting an unprecedented health emergency.’”
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Insolvency Case Against Dhanlaxmi Electricals, Slams NCLAT for Ignoring
The judges noted that the scheme itself-PMGKY insurance-was announced precisely because lakhs of healthcare workers, including private practitioners, were being pulled into the national response.
A second important point surfaced: requisitioning does not require perfect formal language. It can be inferred from the legal framework, the situation, and official communications issued under emergency powers.
At one point, the court gently disagreed with the High Court’s narrow reading, saying such a strict approach “does not align with the lived reality of the pandemic,” when doctors worked despite fear, exhaustion, and lack of clarity.
However, the bench made one careful distinction: while requisition existed in law and circumstance, each insurance claim must still prove that the deceased doctor was performing COVID-related duties when he died. That factual enquiry, the judges said, remains with the authorities.
Read also:- Supreme Court Replaces Arbitrator After Missed Deadline, Says Mandate Ended Automatically
Decision
Summing up, the Supreme Court held that there was requisition of doctors’ services during the pandemic, as evident from the Act, regulations, orders, FAQs, and the context itself.
The bench concluded:
- The High Court’s finding that “no requisition existed” was incorrect.
- Claims under the PMGKY scheme should not be rejected merely because no specific drafting letter was issued.
- But each claimant must still show evidence that the doctor died while performing COVID-related duties.
With these directions, the appeal was disposed of, giving fresh hope to many families whose claims were earlier turned down on technical grounds.
Case Title: Pradeep Arora & Others vs. Director, Health Department, Govt. of Maharashtra & Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP (C) No. 16860 of 2021)
Case Type: Civil Appeal – Insurance Claim under PMGKY for COVID-19 Duty
Decision Date: 11 December 2025
