Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Anil Mittal, Vibhuti Sushant, Dr. Kailash Chand, Advs., for the Appellants.
For the Respondents:Ms. Indu Malhotra, Dr. Adv., Kush Chaturvedi, Vikas Mehta, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, R.K. Tripathi, John L. Joedle, Advs., with him for the Respondents.

Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:

• Principles of Natural Justice necessitate that a fair opportunity be given to the complainant to prove his claim based on the expert report. The denial of such an opportunity renders the order unsustainable (!) (!) .

• The case involves medical negligence related to a surgical procedure for spinal decompression. The appellant contended that the operation was unsuccessful, leaving him handicapped, and alleged negligence on the part of the medical practitioners (!) (!) .

• The original treatment records and X-ray films were not properly forwarded to the expert due to oversight by the Assistant Registrar, which handicapped the expert’s ability to form a complete opinion (!) (!) (!) .

• The expert’s opinion was limited because vital and important documents, including original radiological images and detailed operative findings, were not made available. This impacted the reliability of the expert’s assessment (!) (!) (!) .

• The appellant filed an application requesting the treatment records be forwarded to the expert for reconsideration, which was rejected by the commission on the grounds that further expert opinion was unnecessary at that stage. However, this rejection was found to be unjustified because the absence of complete records prevented the expert from forming a proper opinion (!) (!) (!) .

• The court emphasized that expert opinions are crucial in highly specialized medical cases, and their value depends on the credibility of the expert and the relevance of the facts and data on which the opinion is based (!) (!) (!) .

• The failure to provide the expert with all relevant records violated the principles of natural justice, as it deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to substantiate his case (!) (!) .

• The court directed that the treatment records be forwarded to a different qualified expert for an opinion, and that the case be reconsidered after receipt of this opinion, ensuring the appellant’s right to a fair hearing and proper evaluation of evidence (!) (!) .

• The order passed by the original commission was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after proper expert evaluation, with the appellant not being liable for the negligence of the administrative staff (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further assistance or specific legal analysis.