Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. Challenge is to the Order No.35 dated March 30, 2011 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in Complaint Case No.SC-9/O/2004 thereby disposing of a misc. application dated March 2, 2011. The petitioners herein filed a complaint case being No.SC- 9/O/2004 before the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (henceforth shall be called as “State Commission” in short) against the opposite parties claiming damages for medical negligence and deficiency in service by the opposite parties in respect of the treatment of the complainants’ minor daughter Kumari Nabanita Nandi (since deceased). The said daughter of the complainants was admitted to Ramakrishna Mission Seva Pratisthan @ Sishumangal Hospital, Kolkata-700026 on May 18, 2002 as she was not well. The doctors on duty treated her. But, ultimately, the said minor of girl could not be saved and she died. The complainants brought the charge of medical negligence and deficiency in service against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are contesting the said complaint case by taking their appropriate defence stand denying the material allegations contained in the petition of complaint. The said complaint case was at the stage of recording evidence. Ultimately, at the intervention of this Hon’ble Court, the witness of the defendant, namely, Swami Sarvalokananda, Secretary of the Ramakrishna Mission Seva Pratisthan was directed to be cross examined,on commission, in presence of the parties within a specified period at his residence in camera. But the cross examination could not be completed within the time fixed by this Hon’ble Court and as such, another chance was given to complete the cross-examination of Swami Sarvalokananda within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the order dated February 26, 2010. Then, Swami Sarvalokananda was cross-examined but his cross-examination could not be completed on the date fixed by the Advocate-Commissioner. Under the circumstances, another application dated March 2, 2011 was filed on behalf of the petitioners and that application was disposed of by the impugned order holding that unless further leave was granted to the complainants by the Hon’ble Court for further cross-examination of Swami Sarvalokananda, there would be no further cross-examination of him. Being aggrieved by such orders, this application has been preferred by the complainants. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Being aggrieved by such orders, this application has been preferred by the complainants. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the question of further cross-examination of Swami Sarvalokananda is the matter for determination by the impugned order. The State Commission disposed of the concerned M.A. application holding that unless, further leave was granted to the complainants by the Honble Court, for such cross-examination of the said witness, there would not be further cross-examination of the said witness. So far as the procedure for disposal of the complaint cases before the State Commission are concerned, Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lays down the procedure for the disposal of the complaints stating, inter alia, that the provisions of Sections 12, 13 & 14 and the rules made there under for the disposal of complaints by the District Forum shall, with such modifications as may be necessary, be applicable to the disposal of such complaints. According to provisions of Section 13 particularly Sub-Section (3A), every complaint shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and Endeavour shall be made to decide the complaint within a period of three months from the date of receipt of notice by the opposite parties. The whole object of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to provide for better protection of the interest of consumers at an early date and that is why there is a time limit within which a complaint is to be disposed of and the complainant should take effective measures for completion of the hearing for their own interest. But in the instant case, I find that the laches is on the part of the complainants and so, they cannot be allowed to renew their prayer in such circumstances. The process of speedy trial shall be adopted as provided in the 1986 Act and so the mandate is required to be strictly adhered to. According to Section 13 of the said Act, evidence is to be recorded by way of affidavits and there is no procedure for cross examination of the witnesses, but in the instant case, the cross examination of the opposite party no.1 of the complaint case was allowed to this Hon’ble Court, upon certain terms and conditions. According to Section 13 of the said Act, evidence is to be recorded by way of affidavits and there is no procedure for cross examination of the witnesses, but in the instant case, the cross examination of the opposite party no.1 of the complaint case was allowed to this Hon’ble Court, upon certain terms and conditions. Previously, the cross-examination was permitted within a period of two weeks from the date of obtaining a copy of the order with specific direction not to make unnecessary and vexes us cross examination. Subsequently, another opportunity was given by this Hon’ble Court for further cross-examination and it was done. But, it is unfortunate to note that the cross-examination of the opposite party no.1 was not yet completed. Moreover, the complainants did not take any steps for about one year from the last order passed by this Hon’ble Court for cross-examination. Now the O.P.W. No.1 has been functioning as the Secretary of the unit in Bombay. So, if the prayer of the complainants / petitioners herein is allowed, it will be contrary to the provisions of Sub-Section (3A) of Section 13 of the said 1986 Act. Under the circumstances, the State Commission did not grant any permission. Mr. B.K. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has referred to the decision of Dr. J.J. Merchant & ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi reported in (2002) 6 SCC 635 and thus, he submits that the cross-examination is permissible and the Hon’ble Court can grant such permission. That was a matter before the National Commission and the Hon’ble Apex Court granted permission for cross-examination of the witness who was an expert in the matter. In the instant case, the opposite party no.1 is not an expert but the Secretary of the Ramakrishna Mission Seva Pratisthan @ Sishumangal Hospital. He is not an expert in the matter of medical negligence. However, this Hon’ble Court granted permission to cross examine the Secretary on two occasions, but it is unfortunate to note that the cross-examination could not be completed. As regards above, there is no provision for cross-examination of the witness but may be done in case of an expert in a particular field and there is laches on the part of the complainants. So, I am of the view that the learned State Commission did not allow the application rightly. As regards above, there is no provision for cross-examination of the witness but may be done in case of an expert in a particular field and there is laches on the part of the complainants. So, I am of the view that the learned State Commission did not allow the application rightly. Now, under the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order passed by the State Commission cannot be said to be without any jurisdiction. As there is no provision for cross-examination of a witness of general nature like the present one, in the 1986 Act, the question of completion of the cross-examination of the O.P.W. No.1 has lost its relevance under the circumstances. So, the ratio of the decision of Dr. J.J. Merchant & anr. (supra), I hold, is not applicable in the instant situation. The learned advocates for the opposite party no.s 2, 3 & 5 have referred to the decision of Om Prakash Saini v. DCM Ltd. & ors. reported in 2011 CTJ 241, the decision of The Manager, Burdwan Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited v. Anath Bandhu Dhara reported in 2009(2) CLJ (Cal) 685, the decision of The Manager, Contai Co-operative Bank Ltd. & anr. v. Smt. Gouri Mandal reported in 2009(1) CLJ (Cal) 929, the decision of United Bank of India v. Hirak Mukherjee & ors. reported in 1995(1) CLJ 124 and the decision of ANZ Grindlays Bank & anr. v. President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum & ors. reported in 1995(1) CLJ 169 . They have submitted that if the petitioners have any grievance against the impugned order, there is a provision for preferring an appropriate application before the National Commission under Section 21 of the 1996 Act. A writ application under Article 226 or an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in such circumstances. During argument Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that since this Hon’ble Court granted permission to cross-examine the opposite party no.1 on two occasions previously, another chance should be given to complete the cross-examination of the O.P.W. No.1. In this regard as the petitioners were given adequate opportunities to complete the cross-examination of Swami Sarvalokananda on two occasions and as there was laches on the part of the petitioners for about one year, I hold, no permission shall be granted from this Hon’ble Court to a defaulting party. In this regard as the petitioners were given adequate opportunities to complete the cross-examination of Swami Sarvalokananda on two occasions and as there was laches on the part of the petitioners for about one year, I hold, no permission shall be granted from this Hon’ble Court to a defaulting party. Similarly, if the prayer for sending questionnaires to the O.P.W. No.1 for reply or a video conferencing as suggested is passed by this Hon’ble Court, it will also be against the spirit and object of the 1986 Act. This Hon’ble Court should not interfere with any order passed by the State Commission which is not without jurisdiction. Since, there is an effective efficacious remedy to the petitioners against the impugned order and the concerned impugned order being not without any jurisdiction and in consideration of the above facts and circumstances, and the decisions cited by the opposite parties, I am of the view that this application for further extension of time cannot be entertained. The revisional application is not, therefore, entertained. It is, therefore, dismissed with such observations. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Since, the application is disposed of at the motion stage and an affidavit-in-opposition has not been called for from the opposite parties, the allegations contained in the application against the opposite parties stand not admitted by the opposite parties.