Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral):- This complaint was filed in the year 1993 and was disposed of by this Commission vide its order dated 24.4.1997. Respondent/Ops felt aggrieved from the said order, preferred first Appeal No. 225/1997. It was a followed by the National Commission in the following terms:- "Both the parties agree that they should also be given opportunity to file additional documents in support of their respective contentions of the case, I think it is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the aforementioned circumstances, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission. The matter is remanded to the learned State Commission for hearing the parties afresh including the new documents, which the parties wish to file as well as the law point raised by the appellant before us with regard to condition No. 15 oHhe policy. Since this is an old matter, the State Commissioner is requested to dispose of the matter at the earliest, if possible, with a period of our months. Both the parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27.7.2006."

2. After its remand case was taken upon the date fixed by National Commission as was adjourned to 10.8.2006 on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties. On the adjourned date following order was passed:- "After remand of the case supplementary affidavits of Sh. Tej Singh complainant and also Dr. R.K. Gupta have been filed today which are taken on record. Both of them shall remain present for their cross-examination on 29.8.2006 on which date Mr. Sharma submitted that if any counter affidavit is to be filed, needful will be done by his client. It is clearly understood between the learned counsel for the parties that so far complainant and Dr. R.K. Gupta are concerned they shall be cross-examined on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company on the next date. Office is directed to locate the files/copies of the learned Members and put them with this complaint on the next date of hearing."

3. Pursuant to this order complainant as well as Dr. R.K. Gupta both had filed supplementary affidavits. Both of them have been examined.

4. Case was adjourned to 18.9.2006, when following order was passed while fixing the case on 13.10.2006:- "Witness Dr. R.K. Gupta has been examined today on behalf of complainant and Mr. Goel closed the evidence of his client. Mr. Sharma has filed affidavit of Sh. Satish Saxena alongwith surveyor report and two other documents in hand. Mr. Goel stated that he would cross-examine Sh. Satish Saxena has well as Dr. Dalip Pandits who shall be produced on the next date of hearing by Mr. Ratish Sharma on behalf of respondent Mr. Sharma also stated that on other witness namely Sanjay Sood who had also conducted the spot survey is also witness whose affidavit would not be filed. Since he has left the work of surveyor and has joined some Government service as per instructions received by him from the respondent. He thus submitted that on the next date of hearing he will file-affidavit to this effect also. Keeping in view the age of the case, it is ordered that Mr. Saxena and Dr. Dalip Pandita shall be produced for their cross-examination on the next date of hearing and presence of Sanjay Sood will also be arranged by the opposite party on that day. In case, needful is not done no further opportunity for that purpose will be allowed. Be listed on 13.10.2006 for further proceedings. Dasti copy. (Emphasis supplied)

5. We feel that the above order was in consonance with the mandate of National Commission supra. To ensure compliance with it, Ops could easily seek assistance from Commission to procure the presence of these three persons.

6. None of the deponents of affidavits filed by the Ops were present and in the light of the order dated 18.9.2006 supra, following order was passed on 13.10.2006:- "Mr. Sharma has filed affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Sood alongwith his spot survey report which is taken on