JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of January 2021
Ext.P4 order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalath, Thiruvananthapuram, rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. Petitioner hospital is the respondent in O.P. No.24 of 2019 on the file of the Permanent Lok Adalath, Thiruvananthapuram, filed by the respondent herein. The respondent filed Ext.P1 petition seeking orders for compensation from the petitioner herein, alleging that he was a byestander for his wife who was admitted in petitioner hospital and he fell down from a narrow bench in that room and sustained injuries. Petitioner herein raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition filing Ext.P2 I.A.No.23 of 2020. The contention of the petitioner was that respondent does not have any locus standi to file the petition as he has not availed any service from it. The Permanent Lok Adalat rejected the application as per
3
Ext.P4 order.
3. The contention in this writ petition is that a Byestander would not come under the definition of 'services' under Section 22A(v) of the Legal Services Authorities Act and therefore further proceedings in the O.P would be without jurisdiction.
4. According to Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner is not expected to provide any services to a byestander and the respondent did not have any complaints for several days after the admission of the patient and therefore, the further proceedings in the O.P before the Permanent Lok Adalat have to be stayed as any further proceedings would be without jurisdiction.
5. 'Public utility service' is defined under Section 22A(b) (v) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 as follows:
"22-A. Definitions.—In this Chapter and for the purposes of Sections 22 and 23, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) xxx.
(b) "public utility service" means any—
(i) xxx or xxxx
4
(v) service in hospital or dispensary; or xxxx
and includes any service which the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may, in the public interest, by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of this Chapter."
On consideration of the contention of Sri. Sreekumar, the Learned Senior Counsel, I am of the view that the contention as to whether `Byestander' would come under the definition also requires to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence. I am of the view that no interference is required at this stage to stall the proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The petitioner would be free to adduce evidence on all these aspects.
The writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/-
P.V.ASHA
JUDGE
ska
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN O.P.NO.24 OF 2019
FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT,PERMANENT LOK ADALATH.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN I.A.NO.23 OF 2020
IN O.P.NO.24 OF 2019 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT,PERMANENT LOK ADALATH.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 10.02.2020 FILED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO EXHIBIT P2.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA.NO.23 OF 2020 IN
O.P.NO.24 OF 2019 DATED 07.12.2020 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT.