Respondents/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner. In terms of order passed by Supreme Court in “Martin F. D’Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq, 2009 (2) RCR Criminal Page 64, the case was referred to Committee of Experts which opined as under:

          “Hence it is unlikely to be surgical technique negligence.”

-2-

          Petitioner/opposite party prayed before the District Forum to dismiss the complaint.  District Forum did not dismiss the complaint as had been urged by the petitioner and admitted the complaint.  Notices were ordered to be issued. 

Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed.  Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner before the State Commission was that in view of decision of Supreme Court in Marti F. D’souza’s case (supra) on receipt of report of the experts to the effect that there was no negligence on part of the petitioners, notices could not be issued.  This contention was over ruled by the State Commission relying upon the latest judgment of Supreme Court in “Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee (Dr.) III (2009) CPJ 17 (SC) (CP), in which it has been held that the court is not bound by the evidence of experts which is, to a large extent, advisory in nature. 

          I agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  The body of experts cannot be made judge in the cause.  The case has to be

-3-

decided by the fora and the report given by the experts is only a piece of evidence which can be taken into consideration while deciding the complaint.  Contention of the petitioner that proceedings before the District Forum could not be continued in view of te report submitted by the experts, cannot be accepted.  It would be for the District Forum to decide the same after taking into consideration the report of the experts.  No merits.  Dismissed.