SC questions Centre over exclusion of private doctors, health workers in insurance scheme

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to explain why doctors and health workers employed in private clinics and dispensaries were kept out of a central insurance scheme that provided ₹50 lakh cover for the families of frontline health workers who died fighting Covid

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to explain why doctors and health workers employed in private clinics and dispensaries were kept out of a central insurance scheme that provided ₹50 lakh cover for the families of frontline health workers who died fighting Covid.

HT Image

The scheme introduced on March 28, 2020, under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package (PMGKP) was titled ‘Insurance Scheme for Hospital Workers Fighting Covid-19’. Under it, a sum of ₹50 lakh was assured to health workers employed in public healthcare institutions and the same was extended only to those private hospital staff and contract workers whose services were “requisitioned” for Covid duties by the state or central government hospitals or autonomous institutions like All India Institute of Medical Sciences. Other conditions attached to the scheme required the beneficiaries to be employed for Covid-related duties and their death had to be due to the infection.

Funds for the scheme were allocated from the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) and released through the New India Assurance Company.

The bench of justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna said, “Prima facie the objective of the scheme is to provide social security to health professionals in view of the risks they faced due to Covid-19, be it in public or private institutions.”

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the family members of seven doctors of private establishments in Mumbai who died fighting the pandemic during the first and second waves. They challenged an order of March 9 passed by the Bombay high court which held that those not “requisitioned” by the state or Centre were not entitled to the insurance cover.

Issuing a notice to the Union ministry of health and family welfare and the Maharashtra government, the bench said, “The matter raises issues of considerable public importance since it has bearing on the security of health professionals who served the nation during Covid-19.”

Though the petition before the high court was filed by the widow of a single medical practitioner, the top court allowed the family members of six other doctors to represent the appeal before it, noting the “nationwide consequences” flowing from the petition.

The court requested the solicitor general of India to assist in the matter when it comes up for hearing after three weeks to ensure that the objective of the scheme is duly fulfilled.

The petition was argued by Pradeep Arora, one of the petitioners, who submitted that the HC order was wrong as it failed to consider an order issued by the commissioner of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation on March 31, 2020, directing all clinics and private medical establishments to remain open for serving Covid-19 patients when the nationwide lockdown was in place.

This came on the heels of another order of the state government on March 14 under the Epidemic Act, 1897, requiring all medical institutions to remain at the disposal of the municipal commissioner for steps to prevent and contain Covid-19. Fearing criminal action, the doctors were forced to keep their clinics open and, in the process, lost their lives treating patients.

The petitioner who approached Bombay high court was one Kiran Bhaskar Surgade whose husband, having his private dispensary in Thane, succumbed to the infection on June 10, 2020. She first approached the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation to claim benefits under the PMGKP insurance scheme. On September 7, 2020, her claim was denied by the insurance company on the ground that the private dispensary of her husband was not recognised as a Covid-19 dispensary. Surgade challenged this order before the high court.

While the issue was pending in the HC, the Maharashtra government wrote to the Union health secretary on October 1, 2020, on whether the benefit under the central scheme could be extended to all private practitioners. A fortnight later, the Centre responded by saying no benefit could be provided to those not “requisitioned” by the Centre or states.

The HC relied heavily on the Centre’s letter and dismissed the widow’s petition. It said, “The letter (by the Union government) categorically states that for a private healthcare provider to be covered under the scheme, he or she must be ‘drafted’ by the state/Centre for Covid-19-related responsibilities.”

It added, “Considering that Surgade’s services were not requisitioned as mandated under the scheme, we are unable to extend the applicability of the scheme to persons who fall outside the ambit thereof. Resultantly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.”

In the HC, the Central Council of Indian Medicine and Maharashtra Council of Indian Medicine had supported the petitioner and demanded an extension of the scheme to cover all private doctors.