Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondent. Undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant’s wife on becoming pregnant approached the respondent. During the last visit, i.e., on 18.4.96 the respondent after examination told the deceased that she needs caesarean operation for which consent was given after some reservation on the part of the deceased an operation was done in consultation with anaesthetist, who is respondent no. 2. At about 3 p.m. the respondent no. 1 came to the hospital and asked the complainant to go for leparoscopic T.L. (tube ligation) but the complainant refused that. Thereafter he went into the operation theatre. One staff member informed him that child was delivered at 3:20 p.m. The complainant did not know what happened inside the four walls of operation theatre thereafter but at about 3:35 p.m. respondent no. 2 came out of operation theatre and again asked for T.L. and it was again refused. It is also alleged that respondent no. 1’s sister who was also a doctor was there in the operation theatre. As pravinaben was not brought out for a long time the complainant was worried. He was asking to the staff members about the reason but he was getting nothing but false assurance. At about 6 p.m., respondent no. 1 called complainant’s relative Mr. Bhupatbhhai in his consulting room and told him that Pravinaben was serious and may require blood transfusion. Though blood group of Pravinaben was B positive, respondent no. 1 started blood transfusion of one B Positive and two O Positive blood bottles. The respondent no. 1 also insisted to call some expert doctor, namely, Dr. Jayesh Mankodi. He came soon and after examining Pravinaben he declared her dead. It is also alleged that the respondent no. 1 advised the complainant not to go for postmortem and told that unless he gave consent accordingly the dead body would not be given so he signed a blank paper. Thus, it was a clear case of negligence during operation and therefore the complainants have claimed compensation in the sum of Rs.15 lakh with cost. They have filed copies of laboratory reports, sonography report, Dr. Nagar’s case paper etc. in support of their case. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondent / opposite parties. The matter was contested by the respondent / opposite parties, evidence was led by both the parties and there was subject to cross-examination. After hearing the parties, the complaint was dismissed largely on the following terms:- “In short the complainants’ case is based on the allegation that there was pleading during / after operation merely on assumption that the opponents gave blood transfusion for which there is no expert evidence. It may be noted here that blood transfusion is a line of treatment in case of non-haemorrahagic shock also. Similarly, there is no expert evidence that the diagnosis made by the opponents was wrong and the treatment given by the opponents was not according to the accepted medical practice. Thus, complainants failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the opponents. In the result we pass the following order :- Order The complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.” Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed this appeal before us. We head the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The sole ground on which the State Commission has dismissed the complaint is that no medical expert opinion has been led by the complainant for which the onus lie on him. As per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, culminating in the case of “Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2005 6 SCC 1]”, the onus of prove is on the complainant and that too with the help of an expert opinion. When we read the judgement in conjunction with provision 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we find that the State Commission could have referred the matter for expert opinion. By now, it is well-appreciated that it is not always possible for the ordinary person to obtain a medical opinion as Doctors, normally are not forthcoming in given opinion against a peer profession. Be that as it may, after hearing both the parties, we are inclined to remand this case back to the State Commission with a direction that they should refer the case for obtaining an expert opinion from an independent Government hospital / Medical College and then proceed to pass the order as per law, after giving opportunities to both the parties to present their side of the case. Counsel for the respondent has been kind enough to appreciate this. Parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 6th Jan. 2010. In view of the above, the case is remanded back to the State Commission. Since this is an old matter, State Commission is requested to dispose off this case within 6 months from the first date of appearance.