Case at a Glance
In a medical-negligence complaint pending before the Assam State Consumer Commission, the State Commission appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record the cross-examination of witnesses at its premises in Guwahati, and later refused the hospital’s request to first exchange interrogatories. The petitioners were Medanta The Medicity, Gurugram, and three of its doctors. The National Commission allowed their revision and set aside the State Commission’s order dated 2 June 2026. It directed that interrogatories be exchanged and answered on affidavit first, and that any cross-examination still found necessary be held preferably by video conferencing, or else before a Commissioner based in Gurgaon.
The respondent, Sri Ranjit Ch. Goswami of Guwahati, filed a consumer complaint (SC/18/CC/4/2024) before the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging medical negligence in the treatment of his wife at Medanta The Medicity, Gurugram. The hospital and three doctors — Dr. Sanjay Durani, Dr. Yatin Mehta and Dr. Chitra Mehta — were the opposite parties. They filed their written statement on 13 May 2024; the complainant filed his evidence affidavit on 17 July 2025; and the hospital side filed evidence affidavits on 14 October 2025, 25 November 2025 and 6 January 2026.
On 6 January 2026 the State Commission appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record the cross-examination of the parties’ witnesses within its premises at Guwahati. On 9 March 2026 the hospital and doctors applied for modification, asking that the parties first exchange interrogatories to be answered on affidavit. The complainant objected, calling the application a delaying tactic and arguing that a witness’s body language matters, so physical cross-examination was needed. The State Commission dismissed the application on 2 June 2026, and the hospital and doctors filed a revision under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Key Question Before the Court
In a summary consumer proceeding, should a State Commission require senior doctors from another State to travel for physical cross-examination, without first resorting to interrogatories answered on affidavit?
Summary Procedure, Interrogatories and Public Interest
The petitioners relied on two earlier National Commission rulings — Smt. Indrani Bhattacharjee v. CMO, Farakka Super Thermal Power, (2004) 12 NCDRC CK 0002 and Mani Square Limited & Ors. v. Vinita Agrawal & Ors. — which, as quoted in the order, contemplate that interrogatories are put on record and “replied by the concerned parties on affidavit”, and that where cross-examination is sought, the Commission decides whether any further cross-examination is necessary. They also referred to Dr. J.J. Merchant v. Srinath Chaturvedi, (2002) 08 SC CK 0064 on the summary nature of consumer proceedings, and stressed that the senior doctors would face hardship and disruption of patient care if made to travel to Guwahati. The Commission observed that the 6 January 2026 order appeared to have been “passed in a mechanical way”, since no party had applied for cross-examination, and found it “strange” that the State Commission had not followed the interrogatory-first approach after those rulings were placed before it.
On hardship, the Commission noted that the doctors included the Medical Superintendent, Chairman and Senior Director, and held that requiring them to go to Guwahati “can by no stretch of imagination be regarded as a prudent decision” in the public interest. Because consumer proceedings are summary in nature, the complainant’s insistence on physical cross-examination as in a civil court was described as misplaced; he “could as well have filed his claim in a regular Court” if he wanted that procedure. Since counsel had stated that no notice of cross-examination had been received, the Commission proceeded on the basis that cross-examination had not begun, and reset the procedure.
What the Court Actually Held
- The State Commission’s order dated 2 June 2026, refusing to modify the cross-examination procedure, was set aside “in the interest of justice but also in overall public interest”.
- Each side is to file questionnaires/interrogatories, to be answered by the other side on affidavit within a fixed time.
- If any party still seeks cross-examination, it must show sufficient cause, and the State Commission should endeavour to have it effected before itself by video conferencing as far as practicable; failing that, a Commissioner based in Gurgaon may be appointed to record it.
- The revision petition was allowed, with parties to bear their own costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reaffirms that consumer commissions run a summary procedure in which affidavits and interrogatories come first, and cross-examination is the exception, not the rule.
- It recognises the public-interest cost of pulling senior hospital doctors away from patient care for travel to distant fora.
- It points State and District Commissions to video conferencing and local commissioners when witnesses live in another State.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Patients and Complainants
- Consumer commissions decide medical-negligence claims mainly on affidavits and documents; plan your evidence accordingly.
- Cross-examination is not automatic — you must show sufficient cause if you want it.
- If you want a full civil-court style trial with physical cross-examination, the Commission noted that a regular civil court remains an option.
For Counsel
- Cite Indrani Bhattacharjee and Mani Square to ask for interrogatories before any cross-examination.
- Where witnesses are in another State, seek video conferencing or a local Commissioner rather than physical attendance.
- Object promptly to cross-examination orders passed without any application from either side.
Key Takeaways
- Interrogatories answered on affidavit should come before cross-examination in consumer proceedings.
- Cross-examination, if needed, should preferably be by video conferencing.
- A Commissioner near the witnesses (here, Gurgaon) can record evidence if video conferencing is impracticable.
- Requiring senior doctors to travel across the country was held imprudent in the public interest.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the NCDRC decide whether Medanta was negligent?
No. The order concerns only the procedure for recording evidence. The medical-negligence complaint remains pending before the Assam State Commission.
Can a complainant insist on cross-examining doctors in person before a consumer commission?
According to this order, consumer proceedings are summary; the parties should first exchange interrogatories answered on affidavit, and cross-examination, if sought, requires sufficient cause and should preferably be by video conferencing.
What if video conferencing is not possible?
The National Commission said the State Commission may then appoint a Commissioner based in Gurgaon to record the cross-examination.
Conclusion
Medanta The Medicity Hospital v. Sri Ranjit Ch. Goswami is a short procedural order with a wide reach. It reminds consumer fora that speed and simplicity are the point of the consumer law, and that technology and interrogatories can test evidence without uprooting witnesses from their work.
Practical takeaway: In inter-State consumer disputes, ask for interrogatories first and video-conference cross-examination next; physical attendance at a distant forum should be the last resort.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com