Why keep out private doctors out of ₹50 lakh Covid insurance scheme, asks SC

Covid insurance scheme: Private doctors and health-care professionals who were not specifically drafted or requisitioned by the central or state government were not covered under the government’s ₹50 lakh insurance cover.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to explain why doctors and health workers battling the Covid-19 pandemic in private clinics and dispensaries were excluded from the ambit of the central insurance scheme promising ₹50 lakh to families of health workers who died battling the deadly pathogen.

The Supreme Court noted that the petition seeking insurance scheme for all Covid warriors in the private sector raised issues of considerable public importance since it has bearing on the security of health professionals who served the nation during Covid-19 (Satish Bate/HT File Photo {Representative})

“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 bench of justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna said on a petition by family members of seven doctors who died in Mumbai during the first and second wave of the coronavirus pandemic.

On March 9, the Bombay high court held that private hospital staffers were not entitled to insurance coverage under “Insurance scheme for hospital workers fighting Covid-19” unless their services were “requisitioned” by the central or state government.

The scheme, which was launched on March 30, 2020, under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package (PMGKP), assured ₹50 lakh to the family of health workers employed in public healthcare institutions who died due to Covid. It was extended only to those private hospital staffers and contract workers whose services were “requisitioned” for Covid duties by the state or central government hospitals or autonomous institutions such as AIIMS

As the bench issued notice to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Maharashtra government on Wednesday, the judges noted that the petition raised 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 one medical practitioner, the court allowed the family of seven doctors (including the petitioner before the high court) to appear before the top court in view of the “nationwide consequences” flowing from the order.

The court requested the solicitor general Tushar Mehta to assist in the matter when it comes up for hearing next after three weeks. “We request the solicitor general to assist the Court with regard to the interpretation of the scheme and to ensure the object underlying the insurance scheme is duly fulfilled,’ the order said.

Pradeep Arora, one of the petitioners who appeared in person before the top court, faulted the high court order 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 to serve Covid-19 patients even when the nationwide lockdown was in place.

This order was passed pursuant to an earlier 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.

He said doctors were forced to keep their clinics open due to fear of criminal action, and, in the process, lost their lives treating patients.

The initial petition in the Bombay high court was filed by Kiran Bhaskar Surgade, who lost her husband, a doctor who operated his private clinic in Thane, to Covid-19 on June 10 last year.

She first approached the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation to file a claim under the PMGKP insurance scheme. But her request was rejected by the insurance company on September 7, 2020, on the ground that her husband’s dispensary was not recognised as a Covid-19 dispensary. Surgade appealed against the insurance company’s decision in the high court.

While her petition was pending before the high court, the Maharashtra government asked the Union health and family welfare secretary if the central scheme could be extended to all private practitioners. The Centre, however, reiterated that unless the services of any private practitioner was “requisitioned” by any public hospital or autonomous institution run by the government, they will not be entitled to claim insurance benefit.

The high court dismissed the widow’s petition, relying on this letter.

“The letter (by 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,” the high court said.

“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,” the court added.