(1 of 3)

[CW-10897/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10897/2021

1.

LRs Of Banwarilal, S/o Manful (Dead)

1/1. Kora Devi W/o Late Banwarilal, Aged About 60 Years,

1/2. Atmaram S/o Late Banwarilal, Aged About 20 Years,

1/3. Manju D/o Late Banwarilal, Aged About 40 Years,

All of the above petitioners at Present Residing At Chak 3

K.M.T.M., 8, A.W.M (Aawa), Tehsil Chatargarh, District

Bikaner.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

Permanent Lok Adalat, Through Presiding Officer, Bikaner.

2.

Dr. J.P. Swami, M.B.B.S. (Consultant Department Of

Urology) Kothari Medical And Research Institute, Gajner

Road, Bikaner.

3.

Chandrapraksh Dadich, Incharge Kothari Medical And

Research Institute, Gajner Road, Bikaner.

4.

Through Chief Manager, Kothari Medical And Research

Institute, Gajner Road, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Shreekant Verma

Ms. Kuber Choudhary

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

15/11/2021

1.

The present petition is directed against the order dated

20.02.2019, passed by learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner.

2.

Precisely noted facts appertain are that deceased Banwarilal

filed an application under Section 22 B of the Legal Services

Authorities Act, 1987, interalia, with the assertion that deceased

(2 of 3)

[CW-10897/2021]

Banwarilal consulted respondent No.2 - Dr. J.P. Swami for the

trouble he was facing while urinating.

3.

According to averments made in the application, when he

contacted the respondent No.2, he was informed that he was

having stones in his Kidney, for which a sum of Rs.24,000/- was

taken by the respondent No.2 Dr. J.P. Swami and the hospital with

an assurance that he will be alright after the surgery.

4.

Banwarilal stated that despite surgery, there was no relief

and the problem persisted, due to which he filed an application

before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner seeking

damages/compensation for deficiency in the services.

5.

The learned Permanent Lok Adalat rejected petitioners’

application, inter-alia, observing that the respondent No.2 and the

Hospital have provided services to the best of their abilities and

the original applicant has failed to lead any ocular or oral evidence

in relation to negligence (if any) committed by the respondents.

6.

The learned Tribunal has also observed that the respondent

No.2 is a qualified Doctor and neither any doubt has been raised

about his qualification nor any evidence has been led with regard

to negligence on his part.

7.

Challenging the order dated 20.02.2019, learned counsel

argued that the treatment, which was given to Banwarilal and the

procedure, which was conducted provided no relief, hence, the

Permanent Lok Adalat has erred in dismissing the claim petition

filed by original applicant - Banwarilal.

8.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and upon

perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the

view that the issues, which have been raised by the petitioners

cannot be adjudicated by the Permanent Lok Adalat, within its

(3 of 3)

[CW-10897/2021]

limited jurisdiction, particularly when claimant himself has failed

to lead any documentary evidence or opinion of some experts.

9.

This Court finds no reason to interfere in the impugned

order.

10.

Writ petition therefore fails.

11.

The petitioners, if so advised, may avail other remedies

including filing suit for damages, in accordance with law.

12.

Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

27-Ramesh/-