Fresh medical examination cannot be ordered to contest existing disability reports already subjected to cross-examination.

The respondent (claimant) filed a motor accident claim petition before the Claims Tribunal alleging permanent disability resulting from a fracture sustained in a road accident

The petitioner Insurance Company filed an application under Order 26 Rule 4 read with Rule 10 and 10-A of the CPC, and Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking a fresh medical examination of the claimant by a radiologist of their choice.

The petitioner contended that the existing medical reports and the District Medical Board's disability certificate were suspicious and potentially fraudulent

The Claims Tribunal rejected the application on February 5, 2026, noting that the Insurance Company had already extensively cross-examined the treating physician and a member of the District Medical Board

1. Whether the Claims Tribunal is required to allow an application for a fresh medical examination by an independent expert when official medical reports and testimony from a Government Medical Board are already on record

2. Whether the suspicion of malpractice in medical reporting justifies the issuance of a commission for scientific examination under Order 26 Rule 10-A of the CPC at the interlocutory stage

Order 26 Rule 4 and Rule 10 of the CPC regarding the examination of witnesses and the procedure of commissioners

Order 26 Rule 10-A of the CPC, which provides for commissions for scientific investigation

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of expert opinions

The principle that there is no legal presumption of untruthfulness regarding official Medical Board reports, and the burden lies on the contesting party to discredit such evidence through cross-examination

The Court observed that the petitioner had already exercised its right to cross-examine the treating doctor (AW-8) and the member of the District Medical Board

It held that if the Insurance Company believes the medical claims are false, it must "demolish" the existing evidence through such cross-examination rather than seeking a new medical report

The Court reasoned that calling for competing reports from different doctors would "open a pandora's box" and frustrate the summary nature and purpose of motor accident claim proceedings

It further noted that since medical treatment occurred over a year prior, a fresh examination would not necessarily override existing contemporaneous evidence

The Court emphasized that the petitioner remains free to move applications to summon supporting documents from the hospital to aid its defense, but it cannot demand a fresh examination simply because it disputes the Board's findings

The Court held that a fresh medical examination by a private expert is not a matter of right when official medical evidence has already been subjected to cross-examination

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to apply for the production of supporting hospital records to further its case before the Tribunal, but affirmed that the rejection of the application for a fresh radiological commission was legally sound