Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2194
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MUNNURI LAXMAN, J.
State of Rajasthan, through Treasury Officer, office of Treasury, Jalore and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Muzaffar Hussain Samma, S/o Sulatan Khanji – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17621 of 2024
Decided On : 01-04-2025
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mahaveer Prasad Pareek
For the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Arora Mr. Naresh Singh.
The Permanent Lok Adalat lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding reimbursement of medical bills incurred in private hospitals, as these do not pertain to public utility services.
Headnote:(A) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Sections 22, 22B, and 22C - Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat - The Permanent Lok Adalat lacks jurisdiction to entertain disputes regarding reimbursement of medical bills incurred in private hospitals, as such disputes do not pertain to public utility services. (Paras 7-8)
(B) Writ Petition - The court held that the impugned award was set aside due to lack of jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate the matter. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a retired employee, sought reimbursement of medical expenses amounting to Rs.1,13,031/- for treatment in a private hospital, which was denied by the petitioners on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and absence of bills from a recognized government hospital.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the dispute did not relate to public utility services, thus the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the dispute regarding reimbursement of medical bills was maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the Permanent Lok Adalat's jurisdiction is limited to public utility services, and disputes regarding private hospital reimbursements fall outside this scope.
Result: Writ petition allowed; the impugned award set aside.
Order :
MUNNURI LAXMAN, J.
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is with regard to the impugned award dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA), Jalore in Case No.05/2023 where under the claim of the respondent for reimbursement of medical bills which was spent by the respondent in a private hospital for his treatment was allowed and petitioners were directed to pay such bills.
2. The facts disclose that the respondent is a retired employee from the Transport department and after retirement, he obtained treatment in the private hospital where the respondent spent a sum of Rs.1,13,031/- and his grievance is that under the service Rules in which he was appointed and retired, he is entitled to claim of reimbursement of medical bills spent by him for his treatment. When such request was made, it was not accepted. In such circumstances, the respondent made present claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (herein after referred as ‘The Act’).
3. The case of the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat was that the respondent herein has made a claim for reimbursement of medical bills without there being any bill produced from the appropriate government hospital recognized by the government. Since no bills by recognized government hospital were produced, his claim for reimbursement was rejected.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute of present nature. According to him, the dispute in the present case is not related to the public utility services; therefore, the impugned award is without jurisdiction. He further submits that the medical claim made before the petitioners was without any medical bills of recognized hospital. Under such circumstances, rejection was made and if respondent is aggrieved, he could have taken statutory appeal, if any, and he has no right to invoke jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the claim was made before the petitioners by producing all the documents showing the money spent by him for his treatment and the petitioners without considering all the documents, wrongly rejected the claim of the respondent. Under the said circumstance the respondent moved a claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat. He further submits that the definition part of Section 22A of the Act contains service relating to hospital which dispute is also maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat; therefore, the order impugned is passed by exercising the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. He prays to dismiss the present writ petition.
7. In light of the said submission, without entering into the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to decide the issue, whether the dispute of present nature will be maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat established under Section 22B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. For the purpose of determining the above issue Section 22 and 22B reads as under: -
“22. Powers of [Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat.]—(1) The [Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat] shall, for the purposes of holding any determination under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:—
(a) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on oath;
(b) the discovery and production of any document;
(c) the reception of evidence on affidavits;
(d) the requisitioning of any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any court or office; and
(e) such other matters as may be prescribed.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers contained in sub-section (1), every [Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat] shall have the requisite powers to specify its own procedu
