K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-consideration of an application filed, evidenced at Exhibit P6, where, the petitioner had sought for a reference to the State Medical Board.

2. The petitioner, admittedly, was involved in an accident, in which the petitioner claims that she suffered disability. A claim was preferred before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for brevity Tribunal) on 26.07.2010. An application for reference to the Medical Board was made on 06.10.2012, which was allowed as could be seen from Exhibit P4 dated 16.10.2012. The Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha examined the petitioner on 25.04.2013 and reported Nil disability.

3. The petitioner was aggrieved by Exhibit P5 report and, hence, filed a second application, evidenced at Exhibit P6 for a reference to the State Medical Board. The petitioner also filed an application for removing the case from the list, evidenced at Exhibit P7. The petitioner's contention is that the Tribunal rejected the application for removal of the case from the list and posted the application, for a second reference, to the State Medical Board, along with the case which was posted for evidence.

4. The short contention urged before this Court is that, there would be no purpose served, if the petitioner is examined and the evidence in the case closed; before a medical report is received from the State Medical Board.

5. It is to be noticed that while the Original Petition was admitted on 23.08.2013, there was an interim stay granted by this Court, which was extended until further orders. Today when the case was posted for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would take a serious objection in the second application filed, alleging that it is only a ruse to delay the proceedings, which would eventually result in the Insurance Company being mulcted with the interest liability.

6. The petitioner has produced before me G.O. (P) 161/97/H&FWD dated 15.05.1997, where the Government has issued revised orders/guidelines for issuing Medical Certificates, wherein with respect to the Disability Certificates to be produced inter alia before the M.A.C.T. paragraph 8 is relevant:-

"8. Disability Certificates to be produced before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Workmen's Compensation Court, individual compensation claims in other Courts etc. will be issued by a Specialist Doctor (Government or Private) with not less than 10 years standing in the speciality, who has not treated the patient in the acute stage after the accident. This is to ensure unbiased and accurate assessment of the permanent disability. Perusal of all relevant documents regarding the injuries sustained and treatment instituted etc., should be made and certificate of disability, issued only after careful and through evaluation."

7. The above G.O. was referred to with approval, in a Division Bench decision of this Court in Saramma Scaria vs. Mathai, 2002 (2) KLT 404, where the Division Bench has also laid down certain guidelines on how the Tribunals should deal with applications for reference of cases to the Medical Board. The guidelines issued by the Division Bench survived the interference made with the Division Bench decision by a Full Bench, reported in Jacob Thomas vs. Pandian, 2005 (4) KLT 545 (F.B.). The Division Bench inter alia held that after framing issues, the Tribunal cannot dismiss the application for default under any circumstance, which the Full Bench did not agree with. Only to that limited extent the decision in Saramma Scaria (supra) was overruled. In fact, the said interference was also in mitigation of the hardship caused to a claimant who is obliged to file an appeal from an award passed without he being participated in the enquiry. Despite there being a prevalence of unscrupulous claims before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, no Tribunal can afford to view every claim with a jaundiced eye and it is for the Tribunals to assess and det