Home Judgments & Orders Bombay High Court Private Doctors Who Served Patients During The Pandemic Not Eligible For Govt....

Private Doctors Who Served Patients During The Pandemic Not Eligible For Govt. Insurance Unless Requisitioned For COVID-19 Duty: Bombay HC

248

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday remarked that medical practitioners who opened up their private clinics during the pandemic from the alarm of FIRs being registered against them by going against the civic Chief’s directions would not be eligible for the Rs.50,00,000 compensation under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package if they surrendered in front of virus unless they were specifically assigned and taken into consideration to treat COVID-19 patients.

In this case, a petition was filed by Navi Mumbai resident Kiran Surgade whose intention was in the favour to seek compensation for her husband’s death who was passed away due to the COVID-19 virus on the date 10th June 2020. The claim of the compensation was made under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package. The divisional bench consisting of Justice Sharukh Kathawalla and Razia Chagla dismissed this petition and her claim got rejected by New India Assurance Company on 20th September 2020.

In the petition filed by her wife, she stated that her late husband Bhaskar, who was an Ayurveda practitioner received a noticed-on 31th March 2020 from the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation Commissioner ordering him to open up his dispensary and threatening him with the prosecution under section 188 which talks about disobeying orders a public servants order of IPC. Because of this, her husband was forced to reopen his clinic and treat patients including those patients who are infected by COVID-19, however during his practice he came into contact with COVID-19 virus and passed away on 10 June 2020. The petitioner approached new India insurance, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000 However her claim was rejected in September so she approached the High Court. It was argued that the scheme did not differentiate between private and dog government doctors. She remarked that Surgade’s services can be said to be requisitioned by the scheme with respect to the notice addressed to him.

The court stated, “considering that Dr 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.”

The bench also remarked, “At the outset, we express our utmost sympathy to the petitioner and her family and enormously respect the duties carried out by Dr. Surgade. However, for this order, we will restrict ourselves to the list before us viz. Whether or not benefits of the scheme can be extended to the case of Dr Surgade.”

The bench also observed, “there is a difference between specifically requisitioning/drafting services and directing private Practitioners to not keep their clinic closed. The bench noted that, “the intent and object of the NMMC notice was to encourage medical practitioners to keep open their dispensaries which were otherwise closed due to the fear of COVID-19. This notice did not mandate that the said dispensary are to be kept open for COVID-19.”

Read Judgment:

[tnc-pdf-viewer-iframe file=”https://dailylawtimes.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Bombay_HC.pdf” width=”600″ height=”800″ download=”true” print=”true” fullscreen=”true” share=”true” zoom=”true” open=”true” pagenav=”true” logo=”true” find=”true” current_view=”true” rotate=”true” handtool=”true” doc_prop=”true” toggle_menu=”true” language=”en-US” page=”” default_zoom=”auto” pagemode=””]

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here