Cosmopolitan Hospitals (P) Ltd vs Shri.N.G.Pillai
2021 Latest Caselaw 1283 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

  WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.944 OF 2021(P)


PETITIONER:

               COSMOPOLITAN HOSPITALS (P) LTD.,
               PATTOM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004,
               REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,MR.ASHOK P
               MENON,AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE M.R.P.MENON,RESIDING
               AT CHARUTHA,
               VETTAMUKKU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
               SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
               SRI.P.PRIJITH
               SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
               SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
               SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
               SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
               SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.

RESPONDENTS:

      1        SHRI.N.G.PILLAI
               SHREE,T.C.36/1054,KAIRALI NAGAR,KNRA 9,CAP.VARSHA
               ROAD, ENCHAKKAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

      2        THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED
               BY ITS SECRETARY,THE DISTRICT COURT
               COMPLEX,VANCHIYOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695035.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.C.No.944/2021-P
                                 2

                            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 W.P.C.No.944/2021-P

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 W.P.C.No.944/2021-P

(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 W.P.C.No.944/2021-P

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.