Heard counsel for the petitioner. 

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on para 106 of Dr. Martin F.De’Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq reported in (2009)  which has been held not to be a binding precedent in V.Krishna Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital III (2010) CPJ 1 (SC).  In para 49 of the said judgment, it has been laid down as under :-

“In view of the discussions aforesaid, this Court is constrained to take the view that the general direction given in para 106 in D’souza (Supra) cannot be treated as a binding precedent and those directions must be confined to the particular facts of that case.”

The State Commission has observed that the Committee of experts has found certain lapses on the part of the treating doctors while treating the deceased, who ultimately died.  The State Commission has further observed that there are two expert opinion available on record and in the light of both these reports, the State Commission found that there was sufficient ground for proceeding in the matter.   In view of the above, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders of fora below.  The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.