The Bombay High Court has recently refused relief to the widow of a private doctor, who died of the CoronaVirus, citing that the Rs. 50 lakh insurance cover under a Central scheme included only those private medical practitioners who were drafted for COVID-19 duties.
A division bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and R I Chagla dismissed the petition filed by Kiran Surgade, a Navi Mumbai resident, seeking Rs. 50 lakh cover under the ‘Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana’ (PMGKY) for her husband who died after contracting COVID-19 from a patient at his clinic.
The Plea:
According to the plea, the petitioner’s husband Bhaskar Surgade got a notice from the commissioner of the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC), asking him to keep his dispensary open and warned action if he fails to comply with the notice.
The petitioner claimed that her husband opened the clinic and started treating patients, including those infected by Corona Virus and he too contracted the disease and died of it on 10 June, 2020.
The judgment of the court:
The court said the NMMC notice only asked Bhaskar Surgade to keep his clinic open and the same cannot be construed as a notice requisitioning his services for the specific purpose of treating COVID-19 patients and/or working in a COVID-19 hospital.
The court further added, “There is a difference between specifically requisitioning/drafting services and directing private practitioners to not keep their clinic closed. The intent and object of the NMMC notice was to encourage medical practitioners to keep their dispensaries open,” the court said. “This notice did not mandate that the said dispensaries are to be kept open for COVID-19.”
No insurance claim if death due to alcohol consumption: SC
The Supreme Court has recently declined to grant the insurance claim to the legal heir of a man who died of asphyxia due to alcohol consumption.
A bench of Justices M.M. Shantangoudar and Vineet Saran stated that the proviso of the insurance company makes it clear that the injured is not entitled to compensation since it was proved that he was intoxicated and that death was due to intoxication. SC said the insurer was only liable to compensate a person who got injured solely and directly from an accident.
The bench said, “The provisions of insurance policy specifically disclose that compensation will not be paid in respect of injury of the injured if he is under the influence of intoxicating liquor.”
The judgment of SC came on an appeal filed by Narbada Devi, the legal heir of a man employed as watchman with the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation. The man died on a rainy cold night of October 7-8, 1997, in Chopal Panchayat of Shimla district. The post mortem indicated that the probable cause of death was asphyxiation caused by alcohol consumption and regurgitation of food into the larynx.
“We find that the National Commission and the State Commission have rightly held that the deceased’s death was not accidental, and that the insurance company would not be liable to settle the appellants’ claim”, said the Supreme Court.
