Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Officer:- This revision petition is filed by the original complainant whose prayer in the Forum below to cross-examine the opp.party-doctor has been turned down by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, south Mumbai by its order dated 06/07/2010 which is at Exhibit-4. In the District Consumer Redressal Forum the complaint is pending filed by the Kamaljeet L.Rajpal against Dr.Satish S.Ugrankar. It is the case of medical negligence. Both the parties have filed affidavits. After perusing the affidavit of opp.party/respondent, the complainant moved an application before the Forum below that he should be permitted to cross-examine the opp.party on the ground that there are some contradictions in the written statement filed by the opp.party-doctor. His grievance is that said affidavit is full disclosing his conduct. The Forum below after hearing both the parties rejected said application but allowed the complaint to deliver the interrogatories to the opp.party within 15 days. Aggrieved by this order, the original complainant has filed this revision petition. Upon hearing Adv.Mr.Pradeep B.Mandhyam for petitioner we are finding that order passed by the Forum below is sustainable in law and there is no substance in the revision petition. Counsel for the revision petitioern relied upon a judgement passed by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case of Salgaocar Medical Reserarch Centre V/s. R.B.Raikar & Ors. 1996 (2) CPR 50 wherein in 1996 the Hon’ble National Commission was of the view that if the matter cannot be decided properly on the basis of affidavit itself then cross examination should be permitted. However, the recent trend of the National Commission is that no cross-examination should be permitted and cross-examination can be achieved by asking parties seeking cross-examination to give interrogatories. This avoids expenses and consumption of time. Each complaint is required to be disposed of as per mandate of law within 90 days and if such type of cross-examination is permitted then it will not be possible to dispose of the complaint within period of 90 days. Interrogatories can best serve purpose of cross-examination. If there are contradictions answers can be sought. In the circumstances, we are finding that there is no substance in the revision petition. Hence, we pass the following order:- :-ORDER-: 1. Revision Petition stands rejected. 2. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 3. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rule. Nbh | 
