Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | SLP(C) No.-016860 – 2021 |
| Diary Number | 15615/2021 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing interpretation of “requisition” under emergency regulations |
| Type of Law | Statutory Interpretation; Administrative and Insurance Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether regulatory notices issued under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Maharashtra COVID-19 Regulations 2020 amount to “requisition” of medical services for the purposes of the PMGKY insurance scheme? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that, given the emergency context and the conjoint reading of the Epidemic Diseases Act, the 2020 Maharashtra Regulations, the NMMC notice of 31 March 2020, the PMGKY insurance order (28 March 2020), its explanatory letter (3 April 2020) and related FAQs, there was a valid “requisition” of private doctors’ services. Eligibility for insurance depends on claimants proving death occurred while performing COVID-19 duties. Individual claims must be decided on evidence. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that show-cause notices and containment orders under the Epidemic Diseases Act and Maharashtra COVID-19 Regulations 2020 qualify as “requisition” of services for PMGKY insurance.
- Emphasizes a conjunctive reading of statutes, regulations, executive orders, the PMGKY scheme notification, explanatory letter and FAQs to determine requisition.
- Confirms that the claimant bears the burden to demonstrate that the insured died while performing COVID-19-related duties, based on credible evidence.
- Rejects a narrow interpretation of “requisition” in the face of an unprecedented public-health emergency.
- Practitioners can rely on this judgment to support insurance claims under PMGKY for private doctors and healthcare workers requisitioned by executive order.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Emergency Context: The COVID-19 pandemic justified immediate invocation of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (secs.2–4) and framing of Maharashtra COVID-19 Regulations 2020 to requisition medical services.
- Regulatory Powers: Regulation 10 empowered Municipal Commissioners to seal areas and requisition any person’s services; Regulation 11 imposed IPC s.188 penal sanctions for non-compliance.
- Executive Orders:
- NMMC notice (31 Mar 2020) directed private clinics to remain open under Regulation 10, warning of FIRs.
- DMER circular (9 May 2020) specifically requested Ayurved practitioners to serve COVID-19 patients for 15 days.
- PMGKY Scheme Documentation:
- Scheme order (28 Mar 2020) provided Rs 50 lakhs cover for health workers drafted/requisitioned for COVID-19 duties.
- Explanatory letter (3 Apr 2020) and FAQs clarified coverage includes private staff “requisitioned by States.”
- Interpretation of “Requisition”: A holistic reading of all instruments demonstrates State intent to requisition private medical professionals in the emergency; a narrow reading contradicts that context.
- Claim Assessment: Having established requisition as a matter of law, individual award of insurance relies on proof that death occurred while performing COVID-19 duties; burden lies on claimant.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that the NMMC notice (31 Mar 2020) and DMER circular (9 May 2020) constituted requisition of services.
- Argued that such requisition triggered entitlement under the PMGKY scheme.
- Maintained that denial based on private practice status conflicted with scheme documents.
Respondent
- Asserted that the show-cause notice merely directed clinics to remain open and did not specifically requisition COVID-19-related duties.
- Emphasized scheme conditions requiring explicit drafting/requisition for COVID-19 care.
- Pointed to absence of documentary proof that Dr. Surgade’s services were actually availed for COVID-19 duty.
Factual Background
Late Dr. B S Surgade ran a private dispensary in Navi Mumbai. In March 2020, Maharashtra invoked the Epidemic Diseases Act and issued COVID-19 Regulations empowering Municipal Commissioners to requisition services. On 31 March 2020, NMMC served a notice directing Dr. Surgade to keep his clinic open under Regulation 10. On 9 May 2020, the DMER ordered all registered Ayurved practitioners to render COVID-19 care. Dr. Surgade tested positive on 8 June 2020 and died on 10 June 2020. His widow’s claim under the PMGKY insurance scheme was rejected for lack of “requisition.”
Statutory Analysis
- Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (Secs. 2–4): Empowers State to take measures—including requisition of services—during epidemics.
- Maharashtra COVID-19 Regulations 2020:
- Reg. 10: Municipal Commissioner may requisition any person’s services for containment and prevention.
- Reg. 11: Violations punishable under IPC s.188.
- Reg. 12: Protection for acts done in good faith.
- PMGKY Insurance Scheme (Order 28 Mar 2020): Personal accident cover of Rs 50 lakhs for ~22 lakh public and private health workers “requisitioned” for COVID-19 duties, funded by NDRF. Clarified by explanatory letter (3 Apr 2020) and FAQs.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms expansive interpretation of “requisition” under emergency regulations.
Note: Individual claims must still be adjudicated based on evidence showing the insured died while performing COVID-19-related duties.