- (1.) THE petitioners are the opposite parties praying permission to cross -examine the complainant inC.C.No. 50/2012 since complaint filed against the opposite parties alleging medical negligence while performing the Hysterectomy operation and claiming compensation of Rs. 50,00,000, and Rs. 50,000 towards costs.
(2.) PENDING inquiry in CC. No. 5C/2012, after filing written version of the opposite parties and both sides proof affidavits, this petition came to be filed praying for cross -examination of the complainant as P.W.I alleging that the complainant has suppressed material facts in order to cull out the same.
(3.) RESPONDENT /complainant vehemently opposed the petition by way of counter contending that the complainant had explained everything in detail in the complaint and proof affidavit and nothing was suppressed and since the matter is to be decided by way of summary trial and there is no need for cross -examination as the complainant has to prove her case and the burden of proof is upon the complainant. The complainant relied upon the ruling in this regard reported in I (2013) CPJ 186 (NC) in which it is held as follows: "Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 21(a)(i) - Cross -examination of Witnesses - Permissibility -Incident took place on 5th/6th November, 1996 - Application for cross -examination was moved in July, 2012 - Consumer Protection Act envisages summary procedure but due to such delays, Consumer Act become worse than civil proceedings - Human memory is VICISSITUDINARY it becomes very difficult to remember details after expiry of 14 years - No need of cross -examining witnesses after elapse of 16 years - Application is lame of strength." Even though the above ruling is applicable to certain extent in this case since the ruling relates to belatedly filed petition for cross -examination. But, in our case, since the complaint is filed in the year 2012 and this petition is filed after filing proof affidavits of both sides and to that effect the ruling relied on cannot be fully applicable while considering the nature of allegations of the complainant, related to the treatment during the year 2001 and now on this point, the opposite parties seek for cross -examination regarding the same and in that effect stating that the complainant suppressed material facts but not disclosed what is the nature of suppressed facts by the complainant whichneeds cross -examination. The petitioners also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 518 of 2002, dated 16.4.2002 in which it is stated as follows: "Cross -examination tobe allowed when reputation of a person is involved -as to other statement of witness it could be contradicted by filing affidavit by other party." The above citation will not be helpful to the petitioner in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned. We have considered both sides contentions and upon perusal of the averments of the complainant and the petitioners, we find that there is no need for any cross -examination of the complainant by the opposite parties since the inquiry is to be conducted by way of summary trial and the documents are yet to be marked by the complainant and at that time the opposite parties would have an opportunity to question the reliability or the relevancy of the documents and also it is the bounden duty of the complainant to prove her case regarding the medical negligence and onus of proof is by the complainant and thereby we are of the view that there is no need for any cross -examination of the complainant by the opposite parties in this case. Usually, only the complainant used to pray for cross -examination of the medical officers being the opposite parties to prove their negligence. But in this case, in contra, the opposite parties have come forward for such prayer even though there is no bar for cross -examining the complainant by the opposite parties, we feel that there is no need for such purpose and if at all if requires atthe appropriate stage, this Commission itself have power to direct for the same if so and in those circumstances, the petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Petition dismissed.;