The

petitioner

aggrieved

by

the

order

dated

10.10.2013

passed

in

P.L.D.No.382/2011

by

the

Permanent Lok Adalath, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada

and to quash the communication dated 05.02.2003 issued

by

the

respondent

vide

Annexure-B

and

also

communication

dated

17.02.2003

issued

by

the

respondent vide Annexure-D and declare the Clause 5(b)

of the policy bearing No.4667080500670 is invalid and

contravenes Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

(for short ‘the Act’), has filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are

as under:

- 3 -

It

is

the

case

of

the

petitioner

that

one

Sri S.R.Krishna Singh filed a complaint in complaint

No.125/1999 before the Dakshina Kannada Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum at Mangalore seeking for

compensation from the petitioner for medical negligence.

The said complaint came to be allowed vide order dated

17.10.2003 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. and Rs.5,000/- as

litigation cost. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner

preferred an appeal in W.A.No.1291/2003 before the

Karnataka

State

Consumer

Disputes

Redressal

Commission, Bangalore. The State Commission upheld the

order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the

appeal. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District

Consumer Forum and State Commission, the petitioner

filed a revision petition in R.P.No.1115/2006 before the

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The

National

Commission

vide

order

dated

02.02.2010,

dismissed the revision petition. The said complainant filed

- 4 -

an execution petition in E.P.No.57/2010 seeking to

execute the order passed by the District Forum. The

petitioner paid the entire amount to the complainant and

the execution petition was closed vide order dated

06.10.2010. During the pendency of the aforesaid

complaint before the District Forum, the petitioner issued

a letter dated 16.01.2003 and 21.01.2003 to the

respondent intimating the Company about the pendency of

the complaint. In response to the said latter, the

respondent issued a letter dated 05.02.2003 stating that

the claim of the complainant is beyond the time period

stipulated under the agreement. The petitioner issued

reply dated 10.02.2003 brining to the notice of the

respondent that Clause 5 (b) of the policy is not valid and

is contrary to Section 28(a) of the Act. Pursuant to the

closure of the execution petition, the petitioner vide

communication

dated

20.11.2010

sought

for

reimbursement of the aforesaid amount as per the terms

of

the

policies.

The

respondent

vide

letter

dated

- 5 -

25.11.2010 sought for further documents for processing

the claim. The petitioner furnished all the documents as

sought by the respondent. The respondent vide letter

dated 08.11.2010 repudiated the claim of the petitioner on

the ground that the claim is not within the time stipulated

under Clause 10.12 of agreement. Aggrieved by the order

declining to reimburse the amount, the petitioner filed

P.L.D.No.382/2011 under Section 22C(1) of the Legal

Service Authorities Act, 1987 before the Permanent Lok

Adalath, Mangalore seeking for payment of Rs.5,37,448/-

with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 05.10.2010. The

Permanent Lok Adalath dismissed the claim of the

petitioner vide order dated 10.10.2013. The petitioner

aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2013, passed by the

Permanent Lok Adalath, filed this writ petition.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

also the learned counsel for the respondent.

- 6 -

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner vide communications dated 16.01.2003 and

21.01.2003 had informed the respondent about the

pendency of the complaint before the District Forum and it

was not a claim raised by the petitioner against the

respondent. As per the terms of the policy, the respondent

is

legally

bound

to

indemnify

the

petitioner.

The

Permanent Lok Adalath was not justified in holding that

the responden