ORDER :

Thiru A.K. Annamalai, Presiding Judicial Member (Open Court)-The petitioners are the opposite parties praying permission to cross-examine the complainant in C.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.1 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 follow