NEENA DEVADAS Vs. SAJEENDRAN K.G.

JUDGEMENT

(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.