Delhi HC Rejects Advocate’s Medical Reimbursement Claim Under CM Advocates Welfare Scheme

The Delhi High Court has held that mere registration under the Chief Minister Advocates Welfare Scheme (CMAWS) does not confer entitlement to insurance benefits unless the advocate's enrolment and Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) details are duly verified.

The Court dismissed a petition filed by an advocate seeking reimbursement of medical expenses incurred during treatment for prostate cancer, observing that he was not part of the list of verified beneficiaries when the claim arose and therefore could not seek a writ directing reimbursement.

Justice Anish Dayal, while dismissing the writ petition, held that the petitioner could not claim benefits under the Scheme for the year 2022 because his EPIC verification had not been completed and he had also failed to avail opportunities provided by the authorities to update his details or apply afresh.

The Court concluded that no mandamus could be issued directing reimbursement when the petitioner was admittedly not included in the verified list of beneficiaries at the relevant time.

The petitioner, a practising advocate, had enrolled under the Chief Minister Advocates Welfare Scheme, a Group Mediclaim Insurance Scheme introduced by the Government of NCT of Delhi for advocates registered with the Bar Council of Delhi.

The scheme originally required advocates to be voters in Delhi, subject to verification of their EPIC details.

According to the petitioner, he had successfully registered under the scheme and had been issued an e-card pursuant to orders passed by the Delhi High Court in earlier litigation concerning implementation of the welfare scheme.

He argued that having once been recognised as a beneficiary and having previously received reimbursement for COVID-19 treatment as well as cashless coverage for cataract surgery, he legitimately believed that his insurance coverage continued in 2022.

The dispute arose after the petitioner was diagnosed with prostate cancer in August 2022.

He sought reimbursement of medical expenses incurred during treatment.

However, his claim was rejected by the insurance company on the ground that he was not covered under the renewal database.

Aggrieved by the rejection, he approached the High Court seeking directions for reimbursement.

The Court examined the background of the welfare scheme and noted that several petitions challenging various aspects of the scheme had previously been decided by the Delhi High Court.

In those proceedings, a Single Judge had directed extension of benefits to all eligible advocates registered with the Bar Council of Delhi, including those whose verification processes were still pending.

Consequently, e-cards had been issued to thousands of advocates pending completion of verification.

However, the Court noted that although the petitioner was among those who temporarily received benefits pursuant to those judicial directions, his EPIC details remained unverified.

Subsequently, a Division Bench stayed the operation of the Single Judge's judgment in September 2021.

Following the stay, insurance coverage continued only for advocates whose details had been successfully verified.

The Court observed that once the Division Bench stayed the judgment, the legal position reverted to the original framework under which only verified advocates were entitled to coverage.

The petitioner therefore could not rely upon benefits that had accrued solely because of interim judicial directions.

The petitioner had relied heavily on a February 2022 notice issued by the Delhi Government stating that advocates already registered under the scheme whose names appeared in the final list of beneficiaries were not required to apply afresh. He contended that this notice entitled him to assume continued coverage.

The bench, however, rejected this interpretation. It pointed out that the same notice expressly clarified that mere registration would not confer benefits unless both enrolment details and EPIC details were verified by the competent authorities.

The notice also made available mechanisms for correcting or updating credentials on the online portal.

Despite these opportunities, the petitioner neither corrected his details within the prescribed timelines nor submitted a fresh application when registrations reopened in 2022.

The judgment records that the petitioner eventually submitted a fresh application only in 2023 using a new voter identity card. Following successful verification of those details, he was granted the benefits of the scheme.

This, according to the Court, clearly demonstrated that his eligibility materialised only after completion of verification and not before.

The Court also rejected the petitioner's plea based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. 

Holding that the petitioner was not a verified beneficiary during the period for which reimbursement was sought and that he had failed to avail the opportunities provided for verification and fresh registration, the Court dismissed the writ petition and all pending applications.

Case Title: Prithipal Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi Through Its Secretary & Anr.

Bench: Justice Anish Dayal

Date of Judgment: May 21, 2026