We have heard learned counsel for the appellant / applicant. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 & 2 sought time to file vakalatnama and reply to the delay condonation application. The request is rejected. We have heard learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. The role of respondent no. 5 appears to be rather unconcerned with the alleged medical negligence and she has been joined only as employee of the respondent no. 1 and, therefore, appears to be a formal party. We deem it proper to accept explanation given in the delay condonation application. We also find that the appellant has a good case in his favour and, therefore, for technical lapse, the appeal cannot be dismissed in limine. The appellant himself is a medical practitioner and duly explained the delay caused in filing of the appeal. We, therefore, accept the explanation and condone the delay. 2. So far as the merits of the appeal are concerned, we find that the learned Presiding Officer, State Commission held that the complaint was liable to be dismissed on the ground that the expert opinion was available on record and the conclusion drawn by the experts committee itself could be the sufficient material to rule out any medical negligence of the treating Doctor. The complaint was dismissed only on the single ground, namely, availability of the expert opinion of the committee of the J.J. Hospital, Mumbai. In . Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Anr. [(2010) 5 SCC 513]the Supreme Court has held that opinion of the expert is not pre-requisite in each and every case and the complaint can be proceeded with even in the absence of an expert opinion. What we find from the record is that the complainant (appellant) was not given any opportunity to adduce further evidence in order to brush aside the opinion of the expert committee. The complaint could not be dismissed in limine only because the expert committee gave report adverse to that of the contention of the appellant (complainant). The State Commission ought to have given sufficient opportunity to the complainant to adduce further evidence and his request for the purpose of cross-examination of the expert or constitution of any other committee of experts also should have been looked into. In any case, in view of the judgement in . Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Anr.(supra), the impugned judgement and order rendered by the State Commission is invalid and unsustainable. 3. For the reasons afore-stated, the impugned order of the State Commission deserves to be interfered with. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the State Commission for afresh consideration and hearing. The State Commission shall restore the complaint case to its original position and shall give due opportunity to the appellant (complainant) to adduce further evidence and thereafter shall decide the complaint on its own merits and while deciding the complaint the opinion of the experts committee may be taken into account and may be duly appreciated having regard to the attending circumstances and the evidence placed on record. The respondents also shall be granted opportunity to lead evidence. All the issues are kept open. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27.07.2011. No costs.