‘Will open floodgates’: Delhi High Court rejects cancer insurance claim of advocate who missed voter ID verification

Justice Anish Dayal rejected the advocate’s petition seeking cancer mediclaim under the Chief Minister’s Advocates Welfare Scheme.

Petitioner’s EPIC not verified

• The Chief Minister Advocates Welfare Scheme (CMAWS), a group mediclaim insurance scheme, was approved by the  Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) for advocates registered with the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) and voters of Delhi, subject to verification, on December 18, 2019.
• The online registration portal for the scheme was operational from December 28, 2020, to January 30, 2021. 
• Petitioner, a practising advocate, applied for the scheme and was registered on the CMAWS portal after submitting his election photo identity card (‘EPIC’) number and enrolment details. 
• A letter dated June 1, 2020, was sent to the chief electoral officer (CEO) by GNCTD seeking EPIC verification of the applicants. 
• On June 10, 2020, the EPIC verification report was sent by the CEO, wherein the petitioner’s EPIC number was not verified. 
• By an order dated October 7, 2020, the Delhi High Court directed the NCT to procure insurance policies from LIC for 28,744 advocates and from New India Assurance Company (NIAC) for 29,077 verified members of the Bar Council of Delhi who had applied under the Scheme. 
• Pursuant to the order, a provisional list of 29,077 advocates was forwarded to NIAC for issuance of a group mediclaim insurance policy valid from December 10, 2020, to December 9, 2021. 
• Thereafter, the online portal was reopened for updation and correction of details, during which the petitioner updated his EPIC details, though the same remained unverified.

Advocate’s Insurance rejected

• On February 12, 2021, the Delhi High Court directed the issuance of e-crads to all 29,077 advocates, while 22,467 advocates were verified, 6,610 were yet to be verified, but the for many unverified registrants, particularly, 6,610 advocates, which were yet to be verified in February 2021, but were given the benefit of the scheme by virtue of the order passed by the single judge, the court directed to include them regardless of the completion of the verification process.
• In its judgment dated July 12, 2021, the Delhi High Court upheld the Chief Minister’s Advocates Welfare Scheme and ruled that it must apply to all advocates registered with the Bar Council of Delhi, not just those holding Delhi voter IDs. 
• Later, a verified list of 24,033 advocates was sent to NIAC, but the petitioner was not included in the list, as his EPIC details remained unverified.
• A fresh registration window was opened for advocates whose names were not included in the beneficiary list from February 8, 2022, to February 24,  2022, in which the petitioner did not apply afresh. 
• On August 5, 2022, the petitioner was diagnosed with prostate cancer, and on August 16, 2022, his insurance claim was rejected by NIAC because his voter ID Card details were not updated in the records.

‘Advocate arbitrarily denied benefits’

Advocate Kanwarpal Singh, appearing for the petitioner, contended that he was a beneficiary under CMAWS from December 10, 2020, to December 9, 2021, and he continued to be a beneficiary of the scheme when it was extended in 2022 on the pretext that his name formed part of the final list of beneficiaries who were registered in the year 2020. 

Relying on the letter dated June 1, 2020, issued by the Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs to the CEO of GNCTD, Singh stated that it did not specify any requirement for advocates to possess either an old voter ID card or a new voter ID card.

It was also contended that in the letter, it was stated that the applicant’s enrolment details had been verified and forwarded to the CEO for further verification.

It was argued that in 2021, when he contracted coronavirus, initially his claim was denied, but later his medical bill was reimbursed, then his cataract surgery was also cleared by the respondent, but later, when he contracted prostate cancer, his claim was rejected, stating that he was not a member.

Singh argued that his client was arbitrarily denied the benefits of the scheme, as the February 7, 2022, statement stated that registered advocates need not apply afresh.

‘Petitioner eligible after verification’

Advocate Anubhav Gupta, on behalf of the respondent, submitted that the petitioner had applied on the portal with the incorrect voter ID card, due to which his EPIC verification could not be facilitated, as a result of which, his name did not make it to the final verified list of advocates, which was exchanged between the respondents. 

He mentioned that the order dated February 7, 2022, categorically stated that only the advocates on the final list of beneficiaries need not apply afresh, the list was on the portal, and an option to correct/modify details had also been provided; however, the petitioner did not avail it. 

It was argued that a notice was issued on March 14, 2023, inviting fresh applications for the scheme, with clear directions that people, including those who were earlier registered, had to apply afresh; the petitioner filed a fresh application with his voter ID and benefits were extended to them.

The Delhi High Court noted that although the petitioner was registered under the scheme, his voter ID verification was pending; despite that, he had received the scheme’s benefits as the benefits were extended to advocates awaiting verification.

Relief would open gates for others

• The court emphasised that even if the petitioner was under the impression that he did not have to register afresh, the notice dated February 7, 2022, had clearly stated that mere registration did not confer the benefits unless the enrolment number and EPIC number are verified. 
• It was indispensable that the petitioner was not in the verified list of beneficiaries from July 2021to 2023 until his verification was completed; therefore, the Delhi High Court stated that it could not direct the respondents to allow his claim made in 2022, noting that he was not a verified beneficiary.
• The Delhi High Court noted that the petitioner had not claimed that he was unaware of the public notice; he relied on his previous claims received and on his E-card, by consciously ignoring the letter dated February 7, 2022, at his own risk.
• Observing that allowing his petition would open floodgates for many unverified registrants, particularly, 6,610 advocates, which were yet to be verified in February 2021, but were given the benefit of the Scheme by virtue of the order passed by the single judge order.