On Tuesday, the Bombay High Court refused any relief to the widow of a private doctor who had died due to coronavirus infection. It cited that the Rs 50 lakh insurance cover that is under a Central scheme included only those private medical practitioners who were recruited for COVID-19 duties.

 

A division bench of Justices R I Chagla and S J Kathawalla had dismissed a petition filed by Kiran Surgade to seek Rs 50 lakh cover under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY). The petition was filed for her husband who passed away after contracting COVID-19 from a patient in his clinic. 

 

According to the petition, the petitioners husband Bhaskar Surgade, was an Ayurveda doctor and a Navi Mumbai resident. He had received a notice from the commissioner of the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC), instructing the doctor to keep his clinic open and also warned action if he did not obey the notice.

 

The petitioner stated that her husband kept the clinic open and was treating patients, including coronavirus patients too and he got contracted with the disease and died on 10th June 2020. The petitioner then applied for the Rs 50 lakh compensation under the PMGKY insurance scheme but her application was rejected on the ground that her husband was not serving in any government healthcare facility or hospital and therefore wasn’t eligible for this scheme.

 

Advocate Kavita Solunke appearing for Maharashtra government said that the doctor’s services were not requisitioned and he won’t be eligible for the insurance cover. In an order, the bench stated that only those private doctors whose services are requisitioned for COVID-19-related duties would be covered under PMGKY insurance scheme.

 

The scheme has clearly stated that a private healthcare doctor will be covered under the scheme, only if he or she is drafted or requisitioned by the state for COVID-19-related duties.

 

The court said that the petitioner should prove that Dr Surgades services were requisitioned for COVID-19-related duties by the state or Centre to seek claim of the Scheme. The court further said that the NMMC notice had only asked the petitioners husband to keep his dispensary open and the same cannot be interpreted as a notice demanding his services for the purpose of treating COVID-19 patients or working in a COVID-19 hospital. There is a difference between precisely requisitioning or drafting services and instructing private physicians to keep their clinic open.

 

The court said that the objective of the NMMC notice was to encourage medical doctors to keep their dispensaries open. The notice did not order that the said clinics are to be kept open for COVID-19 patients.

 

Source: The New Indian Express