Bar Council Of Delhi Through Its Chairman K.C. Mittal vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors

Prathiba M. Singh, J

This hearing has been done by video conferencing.

This matter concerns the Chief Minister’s Advocates’ Welfare Scheme (hereinafter, “Schemeâ€). The matter has been listed from time

to time. Vide order dated 18th June 2020, the GNCTD was directed to issue the tenders for inviting bids from insurance companies and finalise the

tender for the group insurance and Medi-claim insurance for 29,098 advocates. The GNCTD has filed a status report, which reveals the following

facts:

i. That the Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter, “NITâ€​) was issued by GNCTD and the technical bids were opened on 4th August, 2020.

ii. Insofar as the Group (Medi-claim) insurance is concerned, three insurance companies namely, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, National

Insurance Company Limited and New India Assurance Company Limited submitted their technical bids.

iii. The said technical bids were evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Committee (hereinafter, “TECâ€​) on 5th August, 2020.

iv. It was found that all the three insurance companies were not technically qualified in terms of the NIT.

v. Insofar as the Group (Term) Life Insurance is concerned, the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter, “LICâ€) was the only company

which submitted its bid. Since only one bidder came forward, the TEC found that LIC was not technically qualified and a decision was taken to scrap

the tender.

In addition, a note has been placed on record signed by Mr. Kailash Gahlot, Minister of Law that in view of the bids, a consultant needs to be

appointed from within the insurance sector in order to assist the Government in the entire bidding process and enable it to take a decision.

The Court has heard Mr. Rajeev Nayyar, ld. Senior Counsel and Mr. Satayakam, ASC for the GNCTD along with Mr. Kailash Vasdev Sr.

Advocate and Mr. K. C. Mittal, Chairman of the Bar Council of Delhi. The submission of Mr. Vasdev, is that the NIT had a very high standard of

paying a substantial amount of earnest money deposit (hereinafter, “EMDâ€). He submits that considering that all the three companies who have

bid for Group (Medi-claim) insurance are nationalised government owned companies and are well-established, the Court could exempt submission of

EMD by them. Insofar as LIC is concerned, it is his submission that LIC is the most well-established life insurance company in India and a complete

rejection of LIC’s bid would be bad, inasmuch as imposing such a stringent condition on LIC would not be required and the Court can direct LIC

to issue policies.

Mr. Rajeev Nayyar, ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of GNCTD submits that the companies which have submitted their bids are well-

established companies and there should be no difficulty in conducting negotiations with them in respect of both the policies. Mr. Sanjay Kumar

Aggarwal, Principal Secretary (Law & Justice) submits that the usual procedure followed is that the EMD is needed as a kind of guarantee to ensure

that the company honours its bid right till the end. He further submits that insofar as LIC is concerned, since only one bidder has submitted its bid, the

NIT has been non-responsive.

After hearing ld. Counsels for the parties and perusing the various bids submitted by the insurance companies, this Court is of the opinion that

rejection of the bids of all the bidders, who are well-established insurance companies in India, would lead to further delay in obtaining insurance

policies for lawyers, who are eligible as per the Scheme. The experience of these companies is a well known fact. The insurance policies in the

present case involves thousands of lawyers.

It needs no emphasising that considering the pandemic, timely issuance of the policies is extremely important. The scheme, having already been

launched by the GNCTD, has to bear fruition and cannot be allowed to be rendered ineffective by rejecting the bids of well established companies in

this manner.

The Court has also seen and considered the standing of the bidders, who have submitted their bids and the primary reasons for rejection. There are

two main conditions, which according to the TEC, have not been complied with by these companies i.e., submission of EMD and experience-related

documents. A perusal of the four bidders shows that these are amongst the largest insurance companies in India and the said two reasons are not

sufficient to hold them as unresponsive. There is clear consensus amongst the parties as to the standing of these insurance companies.

Considering the experience of LIC and the other three insurance companies in issuance and servicing of insurance policies, as also the fact that

they are government owned, of which judicial notice can be taken and the further fact that no other insurance companies came forward to submit their

bids, it is directed as under:

i. TEC shall also open the financial bids of the bidders.

ii. Insofar as the Group (Medi-claim) insurance is concerned, all the three companies, namely Oriental Insurance Company Limited, National

Insurance Company Limited and New India Assurance Company Limited would appear before the TEC. The date and time shall be communicated to

the said companies. The TEC, shall conduct negotiations with the said companies without insisting upon the conditions of EMD and experience-related

documents. After negotiating with the said companies, TEC shall finalise the manner in which the Group (Medi-claim) insurance policies are to be

obtained. TEC has the liberty to either give the bid to one insurance company or divide the same as it deems feasible.

iii. Insofar as the Group (Term) Life Insurance is concerned, the TEC shall hold a meeting with the representatives of LIC and finalize the terms for

the life insurance polices. In view of the fact that LIC has a condition that it would only be giving policies to the lawyers till the age of 74, the life

insurance policies shall be obtained for all lawyers based in Delhi till the age of 74 years.

iv. Bar Council of Delhi to prepare a list of lawyers who would be excluded. This Court would consider the modalities for extension of the benefit to

them, if possible at a later stage.

v. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal, Principal Secretary (Law & Justice), GNCTD shall join the TEC in the said meetings.

vi. After holding meetings with the insurance companies, the minutes of meeting and TEC’s decision shall be put up before the concerned

authorities so that the approved decision of the GNCTD can be placed on record before the next date along with the minutes of the TEC.

vii. Insofar as the appointment of a consultant is concerned, the GNCTD may take steps to appoint a consultant, if required, in accordance with law.

List on 28th August, 2020 along with the connected matters.