STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

Revision Petition No.28 of 2014
Date of institution : 30.05.2014
Date of decision : 03.06.2014
1. SMT. PARVATI DEVI HOSPITAL, U/T RAI BAHADUR
KISHORE CHAND MAHESHWARI CHARITABLE TRUST, ABLOCK, RANJIT AVENUE, AMRITSAR; THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN/MANAGING

DIRECTOR/PRINCIPAL

TRUSTEE/PRINCIPAL OFFICER.
2. DR. (MRS.) GURPREET KAUR C/O SMT. PARVATI DEVI
HOSPITAL,

U/T

RAI

BAHADUR

KISHORE

CHAND

MAHESHWARI CHARITABLE TRUST, A-BLOCK, RANJIT

AVENUE, AMRITSAR.
3. DR. GEETA VERMA, SONOLOGIST, SMT. PARVATI DEVI
HOSPITAL,

U/T

RAI

BAHADUR

KISHORE

CHAND

MAHESHWARI CHARITABLE TRUST, A-BLOCK, RANJIT

AVENUE, AMRITSAR.
.Petitioners-Opposite Parties
Versus
MRS. MONIKA W/O MR. IQBAL SINGH, R/O 10 GF, B-BLOCK,
RANJIT AVENUE, AMRITSAR.
Respondent- Complainant
Revision Petition against the order dated
3.3.2014 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Quorum:Honble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.

Revision Petition No.28 of 2014

Present:For the petitioners

Shri Updip Singh, Advocate.

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :

This revision by the petitioners/opposite parties is directed
against the order dated 3.3.2014 passed by District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short, District Forum), vide
which the applications filed by the respondent/complainant for cross
examination of Dr. Gurpreet Kaur, Dr. Geeta Verma, Dr. Jasjit
Chhachii, Dr. Balwinder Kaur and Dr. Amrita Rana, examined as
witnesses by the opposite parties, were allowed and they were
allowed to cross-examine these witnesses through interrogatories.
2.

The facts, relevant for the disposal of this revision at the stage

of preliminary hearing, are that the complainant filed complaint

against the opposite parties for claiming compensation for medical
negligence on their part.

As per the allegations made therein,

opposite party No.2 is practicing as a Gynaecologist and opposite

party No.3 as Sonologist in opposite party No.1-Hospital and she
availed of their services for her treatment during her pregnancy. Her
utra-sound was done by opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.2
merely on the basis of the report of that ultra-sound and without
physically checking her, advised evacuation under sedation.
However, in the subsequent medical check-up no such thing was
found and there was proper development of the foetus. Thus, the
acts of the opposite parties in suggesting that treatment amounts to
deficiency in service. The opposite parties to refute the allegations
alleged in the complaint tendered in evidence affidavits of the above

Revision Petition No.28 of 2014

said doctors, in which they not only gave interpretation of the records
of the Hospital but also gave their own opinion.

Two applications

were filed by the complainant for cross-examining them on the

ground that in their affidavits they expressed certain technical points
regarding the medical texts as well as the false factual position and
that the said technical aspect can only be truthfully explored by way
of their cross-examination and that there were lot of selfcontradictions in those affidavits. While allowing those applications,
vide impugned order, it was observed by the District Forum that the
case relates to medical negligence and the doctors, who medically
treated the patient as well as the doctors, who had given expert
opinion, can be allowed to be cross-examined by the complainant in
order to find out truth whether there was any medical negligence on
the part of the treating doctors or not.
3.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, who by

relying upon the judgment of this Commission rendered in Revision

Petition No.60 of 2010 decided on 7.3.2014 (Dr. Varinder Pal Singh
v. Gurdev Singh) and judgment of the Honble National Commission
reported in 2002(3)CLT 516 (Con Dcor rep. by its Managing
partner v. Smritikana Ghose and another) submitted that the
cross-examination of the witnesses cannot be allowed during the
proceedings before the District Forum, which are summary in nature.
He submitted that it has already been held by this Commission that
such a cross-examination cannot be allowed and the Honble
National Commission in the said judgment enumerated the

Revision Petition No.28 of 2014

circumstances in which the cross-examination can be allowed and

the case of the complainant does not fall under those circumstances.
4.

The facts in Dr. Varinder Pal Singhs case (supra) were

different.

In that case the application was filed by the complainant

for cross-examining opposite party No.1 and the same was allowed
by the District Forum. The complainant wanted to cross-examine
opposite party No.1 as he had denied the facts pleaded by him in the
complaint. While deciding the revision, it was held that the same
will not give him a right to cross-examine him as he could have
proved those facts by means of affidavits.

In Smritikana Ghoses

case (supra), which was relied upon by this Commission, while

deciding the above said revision petition, it was held that the crossexamination of witness or a party before the Forum under the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is not a rule and is only an
exception. When reputation of a person, like medical practitioner in
the case of alleged medical negligence is involved, he will have a
right to cross-examine any person alleging professional negligence
against him.

When it is merely a question as to veracity of the

statement of the witness, cross-examination cannot be permitted and

in that case to contradict a party can certainly file his own affidavit or
of any other witness.
5.

The facts of the present case stand altogether at a different

footing.

The complainant wants to cross-examine those doctor

witnesses, who in their affidavits have not only interpreted the

medical record and the reports but have also given their independent
medical opinion. In order to find out whether the interpretation of the

Revision Petition No.28 of 2014

medical record or report made by them is correct and as to whether

medical opinion expressed by them is reliable or not, the
complainant can certainly cross-examine them. Not allowing of the
prayer of the complainant will cause material prejudice to her. They
have been examined by the opposite parties in order to show that
there was no medical negligence on their part and every doctor in
the given set of circumstances would have the same defence.
Therefore, cross-examination of these witnesses is necessary for
determining the medical negligence, which has been attributed to the
opposite parties.

It cannot be said that the jurisdiction so vested in

the District Forum has been exercised by it illegally or with material

irregularity. We do not find any ground to interfere in this order and
the revision petition is dismissed accordingly.

(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

PRESIDENT

(BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

MEMBER

June 03, 2014

Bansal

(MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)

MEMBER