Conciliation proceedings under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 are mandatory, and failure to follow them invalidates any awards made by the Permanent Lok Adalat.

COMMON ORDER

W.P(MD)No.20411 of 2024 has been filed challenging the award passed by the first respondent dated 30.08.2023 in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No.11 of 2023.

2.W.P(MD)No.20412 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent in I.A.No.11 of 2023 in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No.11 of 2023 thereby dismissing the application filed for setting aside the exparte award.

3.The third respondent went to the second petitioner's Hospital for treatment during her pregnancy. She was diagnosed as a twin pregnancy in that one fetus demised inutero and one live fetus survived antenatally. Thereafter, the third respondent had chosen to have the delivery at Kaveri Medical Centre, Trichirappalli. Once again, the third respondent approached the second petitioner's Hospital for treatment of secondary infertility and she was prescribed with medicines. Due to the said issue, the third respondent was advised to terminate her pregnancy and also had given consent for the termination of her pregnancy along with her husband. Accordingly, the pregnancy was terminated as per the medical procedure and protocol. Thereafter, on 04.07.2022, the third respondent came for review and found that the fetus had grown in the fallopian tube and ruptured which caused a right Tubectomy. Thereafter, the third respondent caused legal notice on 09.09.2022 alleging that due to treatment of the petitioner Hospital, she got fainted and again she was admitted in the Kaveri Medical Centre, Tiruchirappalli and had taken treatment. She also underwent for surgery. Due to which, she had spent more than a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as expenses. On receipt of the same, the petitioners issued a reply notice through their counsel. However, without satisfying the reply, the third respondent filed a petition before the first respondent to take legal action as against the petitioners and also made a claim of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation.

4.The claim petition was taken as Permanent Lok Adalat case No.11 of 2023 and ordered notice to the petitioners. However, the petitioners failed to appear before the first respondent and as such, they were set exparte and passed an award on 30.08.2023 thereby awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and in addition, a sum of Rs.1,77,502/- was awarded under the head of medical expenses. Further, another sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded under the head of other expenses. In total, awarded a sum of Rs.2,82,508/- as compensation with a cost of Rs.1,000/- payable by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners filed an application to set aside the exparte decree in I.A.No.11 of 2023 in P.L.A.No.11 of

2023, which was dismissed by order dated 09.05.2024. Therefore, both the orders passed by the first respondent, dated 30.08.2023 as well as 09.05.2024 are under challenge in these Writ Petitions. Hence, this Court passes a common order in both the Writ Petitions.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the first respondent without following the procedure contemplated under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act, 1987') passed an award and it is non-est in the eye of law. After setting the petitioners’ exparte, proceeded with the conciliation proceedings which is against the provisions of of the said Act, 1987. It contemplates certain procedures which are revealed from (1) to (7) of the said Act, 1987. That apart, without even any expert opinion on the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the first respondent, only on the basis of the evidence recorded from the third respondent as P.W.1 and on perusal of the documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.12, passed an award. In fact, the first respondent recorded that there is no medical evidence on the side of the third respondent. Even then, allowed the claim petition made by the third respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.2,82,508/- with a cost of Rs.1,000/-. When the petitioners filed an ap