IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI PRESIDENT BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH R.P.NO.42/2025 (Against MA.NO.38/2025 IN CC.NO.20/2025 on the file of the DCDRC, Salem)

DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2025

1. Minor R.R.Kumaran Through Natural guardian father P. Ranjith Kumar

3/133A, Chinna Agraharam N.Mangalam Post, Karipatty Salem

2. P. Ranjith Kumar

3/133A, Chinna Agraharam M/s. S. Sathish S.N.Mangalam Post Counsel for Karipatty, Salem Petitioners / Complainants Vs.

1. Dr. K.N.Rao Hospital & Salem Polyclinic Through Proprietor

266, Omalur Main Road, Salem

2. Dr. Rashmi Rao (Reg.No.91752)

Obstetrician and Gynaecologist M/s. M.R.Franklin Dr.K.N.Rao Hospital & Salem Polyclinic Counsel for

266, Omalur Main Road, Salem Respondents / Opposite parties This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/ Complainants praying to set aside the order dt.21.7.2025 in MA.No.38/2025 in CC.No.20/2025 passed by the District Commission, Salem, by allowing the petition praying to conduct cross examination of the witnesses viz. The Manager of the Hospital, Dr.Rashmi Rao, Dr. Shashikala, Dr. Gomathi, Anaesthetists, Nurse Sowmya and the blood Bank in charge.

This Revision Petition is coming up before me for hearing today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for bothsides, this commission made the following order in the open court.

ORDER

JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT (Open court)

1. This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/ Complainants praying to set aside the order dt.21.7.2025 in MA.No.38/2025 in CC.No.20/2025 passed by the District Commission, Salem, by dismissing the petition.

2. The Petitioners / Complainants have filed a complaint before the District Commission, Salem, by alleging medical negligence against the opposite parties.

3. The case of the complainant was resisted by the opposite parties, by denying all the allegations made in the complaint.

4. Pending complaint, the opposite parties, had taken out a petition before the District Commission in MA.No.38/2025 in CC.No.20/2025, praying to permit the petitioners/ complainants to cross examine the witnesses as mentioned in the affidavit.

5. The District Commission, has held that “we do not find any strong reason for allowing this application of the opposite parties”, “the allegation made in the complaint can even be decided in the main consumer complaint”. Thus holding has dismissed the petition. Aggrieved over the order impugned, the present Revision Petition is filed by the complainants, as petitioners herein.

6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on eitherside.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners/ complainants had submitted before this commission that the Respondents failed to disclose the vital fact that the case sheet when demanded had not been provided within 72 hours and wrongfully withheld the case sheets and provided only after a month. The New Act legislated the right to question through interrogatories or through cross examination regarding the complicated question of facts. Thus, prayed for allowing the Revision Petition.

8. The learned counsel appearing for Respondents / Opposite parties has advanced his submissions in consonance with the order of the commission below. 9. In this it is to be seen that the proceedings before the consumer commission are summary in nature. This commission has already held that the cross- examination of a witness under the Consumer Protection Act is not a rule. If cross- examination of a person is to be permitted in every case under the Consumer Protection Act, the whole object of the Act would be lost and there would hardly be no difference between the proceedings before the Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act and a Civil Court. A Commission under the CP Act must exercise extreme caution in permitting cross-examination.

In a judgement of the Hon’ble National Commission in RP.No.518/2002 dt.16.4.2002, held in Condor rep. by its Managing Partner Vs. Smriti Kana Chose &

Another, it has b