The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment on a plea concerning the Central Government’s insurance coverage scheme for doctors who lost their lives during the COVID-19 pandemic. The matter was heard by a Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan, which made strong observations on the State’s duty to protect medical professionals who served the nation in its darkest hour.
Justice Narasimha, underscoring the moral responsibility of the State, said, “Society will not forgive us if we don't take care of our doctors.” The Bench noted that doctors were at the forefront of saving lives and deserved to be protected and honoured, especially those who continued serving patients even outside government duty.
Doctors Who Served Beyond Duty Deserve Protection, Says Court
The Court was examining questions of eligibility under the government’s insurance scheme, particularly in cases where doctors were not officially on government duty but continued to treat patients during the pandemic, Live Law and Bar & Bench report. The Bench made it clear that the line between government and private duty could not determine compassion or justice.
Addressing Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared for the Centre, Justice Narasimha said the government must ensure that insurance companies honour valid claims. “You should compel the insurance company to pay if the condition is met that they were on COVID response and died because of COVID. Merely because they were not on government duty, the assumption that they were making profits and sitting idle is not correct,” he observed.
Bench to Lay Down Principles, Not Decide Individual Claims
The Court clarified that it would not go into the merits of individual claims but would instead lay down guiding principles to ensure uniform and fair implementation of the insurance scheme. “We will not go into individual claims. We will just lay down the principles,” Justice Narasimha said, explaining that the key criteria would be whether the deceased doctor was actively engaged in medical service and whether the death was directly caused by COVID-19.
The Bench added that credible evidence must establish that the doctor volunteered to keep his clinic or hospital open for patients and that the death occurred due to infection from the virus. “Once these two questions are satisfied, it is not for us to question whether the doctor opened his clinic or offered his services for COVID alone,” the judge clarified.
Court Seeks Data on Other Government Schemes
During the hearing, the Bench also directed the Centre to provide data and information about other similar or parallel insurance schemes apart from 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,” the Court said, adding that it would be for the insurance companies to decide individual claims in line with the Court’s judgment.
The case originated from a petition filed before the Bombay High Court by a woman whose husband, a doctor, died after being asked by the State to keep his dispensary open during the pandemic. Recognising the wider significance of the issue, the Supreme Court later allowed other petitioners from across the country to join the proceedings.
‘Nation Must Stand by Its Healers’
Concluding the hearing, Justice Narasimha reiterated the Court’s firm stance that society must not abandon its medical professionals. “The first profession that protects human life is the doctor. This country wouldn’t forget us if we don’t stand by doctors and take care of them,” he said.
With the judgment now reserved, the Supreme Court is expected to frame guiding principles that could shape how future claims under COVID-19 insurance schemes are interpreted, marking an important step in recognising the selfless service of healthcare workers who risked and, in many cases, gave their lives for others.
