This is an appeal which is pending since long.  Learned proxy counsel sought adjournment on the ground that main counsel for the appellant has pains in her leg.  His request is rejected because since the appeal is old one, alternative arrangements could have been made or proxy counsel could have worked out to argue in the matter.

2.      We have gone through the impugned order of the State Commission.  We have considered merits of the appeal as per the record.

3.      The appellant is the original complainant.  At the relevant time, he was a trainee advocate and we assume that by now he has become an advocate with good experience and therefore he could have personally argued the matter before the court. 

4.      The brief facts of the matter are that somewhere in 1984, the appellant received electric shock and therefore developed problem of convulsions.   He   came   across   an  advertisement published by the Respondent No. 1.  The advertisement showed that Dr. R.K. Gupta was running a clinic and was giving ayurvedic treatment for “Epilepsy fits”.  The appellant contacted Dr. R.K. Gupta i.e. Respondent No. 1 in the clinic and paid certain amount.  He was given two types of tablets.    He found   that his condition had become worse after consumption of the last dose taken by him on 18-05-1997.  He was rushed to PGI Hospital, Chandigarh and was admitted as indoor patient.  He suffered from symphomatic gin caesar disorder and high blood pressure.  He was treated as indoor patient in the psychiatry ward till 09-06-1997.  The report about contains of the tablets given to him, by Dr. R.K. Gupta, was received after the Drug Controller of India analyzed the same.  He thereafter filed the complaint.  The complaint came to be dismissed only on the ground that there was no expert’s opinion to show that condition of the appellant had deteriorated on account of treatment given by the original OP No. 1 Dr. R.K. Gupta.

5.      We find that opinion of an expert was not the condition required for the purpose of entertaining the complaint. It is well settled that requirement of an expert’s opinion is not the decisive factor.  We deem it proper, therefore, to allow the appeal partly and direct the State Commission to give due opportunity to the appellant to place on record expert’s opinion and to lead further evidence in order to show that he suffered prognosis due to the treatment given by the respondents.  Since the respondents have not appeared before this Commission, we do not find it necessary to consider other aspects of the matter and the issue pertaining to the cost.

6.          Under the above circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed.  The impugned judgment is set aside.  The matter is remanded back to the State Commission with direction to give liberty to the appellant to place on record any expert’s opinion and also to give opportunity to the respondent to give any counter opinion.  The State Commission shall give afresh decision after considering the relevant documents and the opinion of the expert, as may be placed on record.  The appellant shall be given due opportunity for obtaining the expert’s opinion within a period of eight weeks after his appearance before the State Commission.  The appellant shall appear before the State Commission on 08-08-2011 and shall give due intimation, by registered post (AD), to the respondents of the date so fixed for the appearance before the State Commission.  The appeal is accordingly disposed of.  No costs.