The Delhi High Court has strongly urged the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) to formulate a policy or scheme to ensure the families of deceased advocates do not suffer “abject penury.” This significant recommendation was made while a Division Bench dismissed an appeal for a Rs 10 lakh life insurance claim, ruling that the advocate’s unfortunate death occurred before the insurance policy had commenced.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Ms. Darshana Rani, the mother of the deceased advocate, late Sh. Kamal Khurana.
Background of the Case
The case centered around a claim under the Chief Minister Advocate Welfare Scheme (CMAWS). The appellant’s son, late Sh. Kamal Khurana, had registered for the scheme, but his name was not included in the beneficiary lists for the policy periods between 2020 and 2023 due to non-verification of his Electoral Photo Identification Card (EPIC) number.
Following government notices which clarified that verification was mandatory for availing benefits, Sh. Khurana re-applied. After his credentials were successfully verified, his name was included in the CMAWS insurance policy for the period from 20.10.2023 to 19.10.2024.
However, Sh. Kamal Khurana passed away on 02.08.2023. His mother’s subsequent claim for Rs 10 Lakhs was rejected by the government on 03.04.2024, a decision which was upheld by a learned Single Judge on 13.11.2024, leading to the present appeal.
Court’s Analysis and Single Judge’s Findings
The Division Bench affirmed the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, who had found the insurance claim untenable. The Single Judge had pointed out that Sh. Khurana’s death occurred on 2nd August, 2023, which was “79 days prior to the starting date of the policy.”
The Single Judge’s order, as quoted in the appeal judgment, stated, “Insurance coverage is inherently contingent upon the activation of the policy, which, in this case, occurred after the unfortunate event.” It was held that since no “contractual obligation to provide coverage existed at the relevant time,” the rejection of the claim was justified.
Final Decision and Recommendation to Bar Councils
While upholding the denial of the claim, the Division Bench took note of an affidavit from the BCD stating that its Indigent & Disabled Lawyers Committee had sanctioned a monthly assistance of Rs 10,000 for two years to the appellant. The Court commended this “proactive and benevolent step.”
The Bench then made its crucial recommendation, observing the financial vulnerability of legal professionals. The Court stated, “The BCI and BCD is further requested to draw up some Policy or Scheme to alleviate the conditions of persons such as the appellant so as to ensure the family of the advocates do not suffer abject penury on account of loss of the advocate.”
Concluding with a poignant remark, the judgment highlighted the need for such a safety net: “After all, for most of the advocates and their family, usually the source of income is from the professional exertions and ordinarily they have no financial assistance in situations where the advocate unfortunately expires.”
The appeal was disposed of with a direction to furnish a copy of the order to the BCI and BCD for necessary action.
