1. Complainant Smt. Draupati Bai Kaiwartya, respondent No. 2 herein, under went sterilization operation on 27.3.2003 at the hands of petitioner No. 3 Dr. S.K. Mishra, Senior Divisional Medical Officer, in the hospital owned by South East Central Railway (SECR), Bilaspur. Respondent No. 2/complainant after three years of sterilization operation conceived pregnancy and gave birth to a child on 2.1.2007. Feeling aggrieved against the birth of child pursuant to the sterilization operation, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the Permanent Lok Adalat constituted under Section 22-B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act of 1987') claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,36,000/- along with interest.

2. The Permanent Lok Adalat by its impugned award granted compensation of Rs. 97,200/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of application holding that it is a case of comparative/composite negligence and also held that the dispute is covered under Section 22-A(b)(v) of the Act of 1987 and as such it is a public utility service holding that service in hospital or dispensary is public utility service and therefore the dispute is amenable to the Lok Adalat. Feeling aggrieved against the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, South East Central Railway and its doctor who performed the surgery have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Mr. Abhishek Sinha and Ms. S. Harshita, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, would submit that the award suffers from jurisdictional lacunae as the services provided by the petitioner institution would not be covered under public utility service as defined in Section 22-A(b) of the Act of 1987, as the Railway Hospital is run by the Railways only for its employees as a benevolent measure of welfare, thus the Permanent Lok Adalat would not have jurisdiction to decide the instant matter. They would further submit that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the tortuous liability i.e. the fault liability of any of the parties and as such, the award of damage or compensation that has been made is without jurisdiction in tortuous liability as well as it is also not maintainable and therefore the award deserves to be set aside.

4. Mr. Ramakant Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent No. 2, would submit that the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is final by virtue of the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 22-E of the Act of 1987 and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Alternatively, he would submit that the Permanent Lok Adalat is having jurisdiction to decide the dispute as brought and no exception can be taken to the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel assisting the Court, would submit that only in case of medical negligence on the part of the medical practitioner, compensation can be awarded and without adjudicating the question of negligence, no compensation can be awarded.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

7. It is not in dispute that on 27.3.2003, respondent No. 2 underwent sterilization operation in the hospital run by SECR and petitioner No. 3 performed that sterilization operation. Thereafter, after three years, she conceived pregnancy and gave birth to a child. Complaint filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 22-A(b)(v) of the Act of 1987 i.e. service in hospital or dispensary would be public utility service, was entertained. The question is whether the Permanent Lok Adalat would have the adjudicatory power to determine the disputed question and/or whether the Permanent Lok Adalat is justified