KASHYAP VIJAY DESHPANDE Vs. SHRIDHAR S PARADKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint before the State Commission was filed by the respondent, alleging negligence on the part of the petitioners/opposite parties in rendering medical services to him. The complainant claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 22,48,800/ - from the opposite parties including the petitioner herein.

(2.) DURING the hearing of the complaint, the petitioner/opposite party no. 4 filed affidavits of three doctors by way of evidence. Vide order dated 09.12.2013, the State Commission directed the opposite parties to produce the aforesaid witnesses before it for the purpose of their cross -examination by the complainant. That order, however, was not challenged by the petitioner or any other opposite party. Thereafter, an application seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner for cross -examination of the aforesaid witnesses was filed by the petitioner. The said application was rejected by the State Commission vide order dated 11.07.2014, noticing that the opposite party had failed to comply its earlier order to produce the aforesaid witnesses for the purpose of cross -examination. The petitioner then filed an application, seeking recall of the order dated 11.07.2014. The aforesaid application came to be dismissed by the State Commission vide its order dated 14.11.2014. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition.

(3.) IN our opinion, if the petitioner was aggrieved on account of direction given by the State Commission on 09.12.2013 to produce the aforesaid witnesses for the purpose of their cross -examination, it ought to have challenged that order, instead of waiting and then filing a separate application seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner to record their cross -examination. Having earlier directed production of the witnesses before it, the State Commission could not have allowed an application seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner to record their cross -examination, since that would have amounted to a review its earlier order dated 09.12.2013. Similarly, the petitioner was not justified in filing an application seeking recall of order dated 07.10.2014 since the State Commission does not have a power to review its order.