Heard. In the present revision petition there is challenge to order dated 15.4.2010 passed by the State Commission vide which it has dismissed the application of the petitioner to reopen the evidence and permit further cross-examination of the doctor. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that apprehension of the complainants is that Dr. K. Ravindranath (RW-1) whose part cross-examination has been recorded on various dates has been repeatedly retracting his statements and as such the counsel requested the Advocate Commissioner to list the matter before the Bench for completing the cross-examination of RW-1 but the request of the complainant was declined. The complainants bonafidily wants to cross-examine the witness in open court and as such an opportunity may be granted. Earlier also petitioner filed an application before the State Commission and the same was dismissed which is apparent from the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Relevant portion of impugned order reads as :- Earlier this Commission in C.C.I.A. No.519/2010 on the application filed by the very complainant has passed the following order on 4.3.2010: “This petition is filed by the learned counsel for the complainants to permit him to cross-examine the doctor on the ground that he could not cross-examine completely and the doctor was not giving answers properly before the Commissioner, and it would be beneficial for the bench to see the demeanour of the doctor. By our order Dt. 26.2.2010 we observed the following; The learned commissioner in fact noted in the deposition that the Counsel for the complainant intends to put the matter before the bench and continue the cross-examination before the Bench due to the retracting answers of the doctor, which was denied by the doctor RW-1. Considering the fact that the matter relates to 2005 and that the cross-examination has been continued for seven sittings, no useful purpose would be served if further time is granted. Again opening the matter in order to see the demeanour of the doctor would not hold good. This application is obviously filed in order to drag on the matter. Petition dismissed.” Again the complainants filed this application for the self-same relief, which we are afraid, we cannot order in the light of the order passed above. The proceedings being summary in nature, we do not intend to permit the petitioners to lengthy cross-examination of the doctor before this Commission. The said aspect was already considered. At the most if he wants any clarification on any aspect he can serve interrogatories as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.J.. Merchant’s case reported in AIR 2002 SC 2931. We do not see any merit s in the petition. The petition is dismissed.” In view of the conduct of the petitioners that they have cross-examined the witness for about seven hearings, the State Commission rightly declined the request of the petitioners. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Since there is no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. | 
