‘Society Will Not Forgive Us’: SC to Lay Down Guidelines for COVID Insurance Claims by Doctors Who Died in Service

The Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan made strong observations on the State’s responsibility toward medical professionals who risked; and, in many cases, sacrificed, their lives to serve the nation in its darkest hour.

During the hearing, Justice Narasimha emphasised the moral and constitutional duty of the State to stand by its healthcare workers. “Society will not forgive us if we don’t take care of our doctors,” he remarked, reflecting the Court’s concern over the reported denial of insurance benefits to families of doctors who succumbed to COVID-19 while treating patients.

The case revolves around the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package Insurance Scheme, introduced by the Central Government in 2020 to provide a ₹50 lakh insurance cover to healthcare workers, including doctors, nurses, and frontline staff who lost their lives due to COVID-19.

The issue before the Court concerns the eligibility of doctors who were not officially on government duty but continued to serve patients privately during the pandemic, a category whose claims were reportedly rejected by insurance companies.

Appearing for the Union Government, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati defended the administration’s implementation of the scheme.

However, the Bench appeared unconvinced by the narrow interpretation of eligibility adopted by insurers and government agencies.

Justice Narasimha told the ASG, “You should compel the insurance company to pay if according to you the condition is met; that they were on COVID response and they died because of COVID. Merely because they were not in government duty, the assumption that they were making profits and sitting idle is not correct.”

The Court clarified that it would not intervene in individual cases but would frame broad guiding principles for implementing the insurance scheme uniformly across the country. “We will not go into individual claims. We will just lay down the principles,” Justice Narasimha said, stressing that the focus would remain on two key questions, whether the deceased doctor was actively engaged in medical service during the pandemic and whether death occurred due to COVID-19 infection.

“The said doctor’s voluntary offer of medical services, by keeping his clinic or hospital open for patients to consult him, must be proved by some credible evidence,” the Bench observed. It added that if these two conditions, voluntary service and COVID-related death, were satisfied, the purpose of the scheme should not be defeated on technicalities.

The Court also noted that the duty to protect those who protect others extends beyond bureaucratic definitions of service or employment. “Once these two questions are satisfied, it is not for us to question whether the doctor opened his clinic or offered services for COVID alone,” Justice Narasimha said.

Further, the Bench directed the Central Government to submit detailed data and information on similar or parallel insurance schemes available for healthcare professionals besides the Pradhan Mantri Insurance Scheme.

“Give the data to us and some information about other parallel schemes that are available apart from the present Pradhan Mantri scheme. We will lay down the principle, and on that basis, claims can be made to the insurance company. It is for the insurance company to consider and pass orders on the basis of our judgment,” the Bench directed.

Concluding the proceedings, Justice Narasimha said the matter would be disposed of in accordance with the Court’s forthcoming judgment.