JUDGMENT :

M.S. Karnik, J.

1. This is an unfortunate case relating to the death of a baby boy born to the respondents. According to the respondents, the petitioners were negligent in performing their respective duties and due to lack of proper medical treatment the baby died on 9th July, 2010. The respondents approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short) established under Subsection (b) of Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" for short) for compensation alleging medical negligence on the part of the petitioners. The State Commission after considering all the materials and evidence on record arrived at a finding that there has been no medical negligence on the part of the petitioners. The complaint for compensation came to be dismissed. Thereafter the respondents filed an Appeal before the National Commission which came to be withdrawn as the respondents wanted to approach the Civil Court. The respondents therefore filed a suit before the Civil Court, claiming compensation for medical negligence. The case made out before the Civil Court is more or less on the same set of facts as before the State Commission. It is the respondents' case that it is only before the Civil Court that they can adduce evidence of expert to prove medical negligence as the nature of negligence alleged by the respondents can best be tried by the Civil Court.

2. The petitioners raised preliminary objection that the suit is hit by the principle of res-judicata in view of the State Commission having decided the complaint on merits after appreciating the evidence adduced. The trial Court held that the suit is not barred by the principles of res-judicata and that the Court has jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. The order is under challenge by way of present Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The petitioners are original defendants before the trial Court and before the State Commission they are impleaded as respondents. The respondents herein are the original plaintiffs. Respondents are the complainants before the State Commission. For convenience parties are referred to as petitioners and respondents as per their status in the cause title of this Petition.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would invite my attention to the order passed by the trial Court. He would submit that once the State Commission which is a competent Forum under the provisions of the said Act having tried and decided the complaint on merits, for the same cause of action and on the same set of facts the civil suit as filed would be hit by the principle of res-judicata. Inviting my attention to the order passed by the State Commission, learned Senior Counsel urged that the findings are recorded after considering all the materials and after appreciating the evidence on record. He would further submit that after a detailed analysis of the entire evidence the State Commission recorded a categoric finding that the petitioners cannot be said to be negligent. He would also invite my attention to the various provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

5. According to him, not only did the State Commission arrive at a categoric finding that the medical negligence is not proved but even the Appeal filed before the National Consumer Commission having been withdrawn, the judgment and order passed by the State Commission has attained finality. According to him, the finding of trial Court that the decision of the State Commission does not operate as a res-judicata is completely erroneous. In support of his submissions he relied on various decisions of the Apex Court which I will refer to at a later stage.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the order passed by the trial Court. He would submit that the very scheme of the said Act would go to show that the State Commission deals with complaints in