IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 05.06.2023 DELIVERED ON : 28.02.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP CRP.No.2180 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.16536 of 2021 The Director, M/s.Sugam Hospitals, No.394, Tiruvottriyur High Road, Tiruvottriyur, Chennai – 600 019. : Petitioner/Respondent Vs.

Thiru.Raji : Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the Order made in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in PLA (PUS) No.1 of 2021 dated 01.09.2021 on the file of the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Tiruvallur District.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Balaji For Respondent : Mr.R.Karunakaran ***

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the Order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Tiruvallur District in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in PLA (PUS) No.1 of 2021 dated 01.09.2021.

2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no discretion to decide the dispute. It can only act as mediator for amicable settlement between the parties, if both parties agree. The subject matter of the dispute before the Permanent Lok Adalat in PLA (PUS) No.1/2021 is with regard to the treatment of Petitioner. The Respondent herein underwent treatment with the Petitioner herein and was discharged on 08.01.2013. The Petition was filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat on 02.02.2021 after 8 years which is hopelessly barred by limitation. Despite that the Permanent Lok Adalat passed orders. Therefore, the Petitioner before the Lok Adalat was forced to file this Petition seeking to set aside the Order passed by the learned Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat in I.A.No.1/2021 in PLA (PUS) No.1/2021 dated 01.09.2021. As per the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulation, 2009, if a pre-litigation matter is not settled in the Lok Adalat, the parties may be advised to resort to other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques or to approach the Court of law and in appropriate cases, they may be advised about the availability of Legal Aid.

3. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner relied on the ruling reported in 2021 (5) CTC 335 in the case of Dr.Anbuchelvi Appulingam Vs. District Collector, Kancheepuram District. The relevant portion reads as follows:

“6.2. Then comes the Lok Adalat. It heard both the Plaintiff(Petitioner herein) and Purushotaman, between whom there is no dispute, and then proceeds very strangely to 'decree the Suit as prayed for”. This indeed is startling.

7. LIC v. Suresh Kumar, 2011 (7) SCC 491, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: “It is needless to state that Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction or authority vested in it to decide any lis, as such, between the parties even where the attempt to arrive at an agreed Settlement between the parties has failed.”

4. The subject matter of the dispute attracts the Consumer Protection Act and the Consumer Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. The aggrieved party shall approach the Court/Consumer Forum within two years from the alleged negligence or deficiency of service as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The learned Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat failed to note Section 24 (A) of Consumer Protection Act prescribes two years limitation period for admission of a Complaint by the Consumer Forum.

5. Also, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. B.S.Agricultural Industries reported in 2009 (II) CPJ 29 (SC) wherein in paragraph 8, it has been held as follows:

“ It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the Complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action.”

6. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner invited the attentio