Goutam Bhaduri, J
1. Heard.
2. The present petition is against the order dated 18.05.2018, whereby an application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC and
Section 169 of the Motor Vehicle Act, was dismissed. By the effect of the order, the prayer made by the petitioner to call for the doctor to examine in
his favour was dismissed on the ground that the respondent has admitted the fact that the treatment was admitted to have been given by the doctor.
3. Perused the order dated 18.05.2018, which records that the prayer to examine the doctor has been dismissed. The application to call for the doctor
is also filed as Annexure P-2, perusal of it shows that the petitioner/claimant has prayed for to examine doctor Ganesh Vinayak, Eye Hospital Raipur,
Dr. Vinay Jaiswal, Ganesh Vinayak Eye Hospital Dhamtari Road Raipur and Dr. Rupesh Verma, Neuron surgeon, Shri Narayana Hospital. In the
opinion of this Court, as the claim case has been preferred by the petitioner, it necessarily requires the evaluation of the quantum of injury and
disability, if any. In order to ascertain the same the evidence of doctor in such eventuality would be necessary to arrive at finding of just compensation
which may be awarded by the Court. The denial to examine the doctor because of the fact that the doctors have treated have been admitted by the
opponent cannot prove the extent of injury sustained by the petitioner/claimant. The claim petition being in summary nature at the time of the
evaluating the quantum of compensation, the statement of the doctors would be necessary. Consequently, the order dated 18.05.2018 is set aside. The
application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC is allowed. The petitioner shall be at liberty to call for the doctor through the intervention of the Court to
produce them as a witness to prove the quantum and degree of disability if any sustained by the petitioner.
4. With such observation, the petition stands disposed of.
