Appellants were the complainants before the State Commission, where they had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondents. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the first complainant’s husband late Sh. Gobind Ram Arora, had some pain in the chest for which they went to respondent no. 1, Fortis Hear Care Ltd and contacted respondent no. 2, Dr. H.S. Bedi, who advised them to go for a heart-bye-pass surgery. The first allegation of medical negligence was that even though the package for operation was for Rs.1,90,000/- but after surgery a much higher amount was demanded which was paid. It was the case of the complainant that the wound cut in the chest had not healed and there was always some kind of fluid flowing out from the open wound, yet, despite this, the deceased was discharged for which he was re-admitted. The wound was still not healing. The deceased husband of the first complainant died in the hospital on account of septicaemia, which occurred on account of negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, where the matter was contested by the opposite parties. The State Commission after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record dismissed the complaint, hence this appeal before us. One of the important grounds for dismissing the complaint is that no ‘expert-evidence’ has been led by the appellants to prove the negligence on the part of the opposite parties and since the burden of proof of alleged medical negligence was with the appellants, which they failed to discharge, hence the complaint was dismissed. One of the grounds of appeal taken before us is that the medical record produced before us by the opposite parties was not produced before the State Commission. Admittedly, the record of the hospital produced before us, had not been produced before the State Commission, yet the State Commission went on to pass the order. As per provision 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, if the parties were unable to lead the expert evidence, in our view, nothing prevented the State Commission to obtain the ‘expert-opinion’, by sending a copy of the paper-book and the hospital record, from an independent body like a Government Medical College and in case of Chandigarh, PGI, Chandigarh. In perspective, we see when the whole record of the hospital was not before the State Commission, the reference to any medical college for expert opinion, would have had no bearing on the merits of the case one way or the other for the simple reason that in the absence of hospital record, no expert opinion could have been given. In the aforementioned circumstances, 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, within one month. Copy of the expert opinion be made available to both the parties so that they can file their written submissions alongwith any medical literature on the subject within one month thereafter. Since this is an old case, the State Commission is requested to dispose off the complaint as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the first date of appearance, based on the expert opinion, if need be after cross-examination of the deponents before the State Commission, as well as after perusing the medical record of the patient brought before us for the first time, which is sent to the State Commission. Parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 9th Feb. 2010. The appeal stands disposed off in above terms.