The Consumer Commission is not obligated to constitute an expert panel for every medical negligence claim as the burden of proof lies with the complainant, although it may seek such opinion during final arguments if the case presents complicated issues.

VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :

The Petitioner/Complainant-Taniksha has filed the present Revision Petition under Section 47 (1) (B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (in short, “the District Commission”) whereby the Application for constituting the expert panel from PGIMER, Chandigarh for examining the Complainant-Taniksha regarding medical negligence has been rejected (declined).

It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

Briefly, the facts of the case of the Complainant, which are necessary for the adjudication of the present Revision Petition are that the Complainant had filed Consumer Complaint No. 413 of 2024 before the District Commission for seeking compensation from the OPs on account of medical negligence on the part of the OP No.1 in giving treatment, including compensation on account of mental tension and harassment etc.

During the pendency of the Complaint, Miscellaneous Application was moved by the Complainant for constituting expert panel from PGIMER, Chandigarh for the examination of the Complainant, which was declined vide order dated 13.10.2025 by the District Commission, same is the subject matter of challenge in the present Revision Petition.

Mr. Shubham Goyal, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that to prove the medical negligence in the treatment given by OP No.1, expert report from the PGIMER, Chandigarh is necessary. It was averred that as medical negligence issue being the complex in nature, proper examination/analysis of the treatment record is required to be examined from the premium institute like PGIMER, Chandigarh. For this constitution of the expert panel is required but the District Commission without appreciating the contentions of the Complainant had wrongly and illegally dismissed the Application for the constitution of the medical expert panel.

On the other hand, Sh. Mahesh Kumar Jindia, Advocate learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has opposed the submissions made by the Complainant. Learned Counsel has submitted that onus lies upon the Complainant to prove the act of medical negligence, if any, on the part of OP No. 1 and the District Commission is not bound to fulfill the wishes of the petitioner. Rather the District Commission is to decide its own as to whether such expert report is necessary in the present case or not. It is well settled law that the District Commission is not required to send each and every case of medical negligence for expert opinion and should decide this issue on case to case basis. In the last, it is averred that the District Commission has passed a well-reasoned order and prayed for the dismissal of the Revision Petition.

We have heard the oral arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order passed by the District Commission.

The issue in the present case is as to whether the District Commission had rightly passed the order dated 13.10.2025 or not, whereby the Application for constituting the expert panel has been declined.

Undisputedly, the Complainant had taken the treatment from OP No.1. From the record, it is noticed from the report dated 03.06.2024 OP No. 1 has referred the patient (Complainant) to the PGI for 2nd opinion, if she wants. This fact has clearly been mentioned at page 197 and 198 of the LCR, which is as under:-

“14/6/24 - Removed CL

15/6/24 - C/o irrigation watering

Advised – Amniotic membrane graft

(Patient still not decided)

Contd..

Adv - Patient lens replaced R/E

Patient to decide about amniotic membrane graft.

Ref. to PGI – for second opinion, if patient wants.”

From the record, it is clear that thereafter the petitioner has further examined herself from Code Eye Care