Allahabad HC Grants Relief To Practicing Advocate Who Lost A Limb In An Accident, Directs LIC To Pay Disability Benefits

Consequentially, a bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manish Kumar of the Lucknow Bench observed, “The petitioner having suffered from amputation of his right arm cannot perform his profession as efficiently as he was performing before his unfortunate accident. His performance is seriously impacted in handling his files, books, laptops, and other necessities required in the performance of his profession as a lawyer, not to mention the hesitancy of prospective litigators in hiring him due to his perceived disability. Comparing his current situation with his earlier situation as a person with disability it can be concluded that petitioner cannot ever sufficiently do or follow his profession as an advocate, to earn his compensation, as he was doing before the accident. Therefore, it can be concluded that his earning capacity has taken a sufficient hit after his accident”.

While recognizing the purpose and the intention with which he took an insurance policy, which was to secure himself financially in an eventuality, the bench further held, “The insurance policy itself undertakes to indemnify the petitioner in the form of disability benefits in case he suffers from total and permanent disability. Therefore, any interpretation of indemnifying clauses has to be construed with regard to Insurance Corporation's undertaking to indemnify the petitioner on occurrence of certain events. Therefore, the words ‘any wages, compensation or profit’ should be read in conjunction with the entire first part of clause 10.4 and would mean some adverse impact on earning capacity, not necessarily quantifiable, but enough to put assured in a financially disadvantageous position”.

Advocate Anil Kumar Tiwari, Apoorva Tewari appeared for the petitioner and Advocate P.K. Khare appeared for the respondent.

In the present matter, the petitioner, a practising advocate had purchased four insurance policies with same terms and conditions on various dates for an assured sum totalling Rs. 4,10,000 from Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC).

The petitioner on June 14, 2006, unfortunately had met with an accident while driving his car resulting in amputation of his right arm from above his elbow. Pursuant to which was even certified by a Chief Medical Officer that he was suffering from 80% disability as defined under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

Thereafter, the petitioner moved claim applications under clause 10.2(a) for disability benefits before the respective Branch Managers of the Corporation, which came to be rejected.

The Insurance Company supporting the impugned orders had submitted before the Court that as per clause 10.4 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policies, a permanent disability resulting in irrecoverable loss of entire sight of both eyes or amputation of both hands at or above the wrists, or amputation of both feet at or above ankles, or amputation of one hand at or above the wrist and one foot at or above the ankle for entitlement to disability benefits. Therefore, since only the right hand of the petitioner was amputated after his unfortunate accident, accordingly he was not entitled to any disability benefits.

However, after considering the relevant facts and submissions of the parties while allowing the petition, the petitioner was held entitled to disability benefits. The bench further quashed the impugned order. Respondent Insurance Corporation was directed to pay disability benefits to the petitioner alongwith an interest of 8% p.a. from the date they are due, within 30 days of the order.

Cause Title: Anuj Kudesia v. Life Insurance Corp And Ors. [Neutral Citation No- 2023:AHCLKO:81721-DB]