Aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2012 passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in Complaint Case No. CC/11/175, the opposite party to the complaint has filed the present petition. The order is rather short and reads as under:- eard Adv. Mohit Bhansali on behalf of the Complainant and Adv. Maneesh Dixit alongwith Adv. Yashodhan Gavankar on behalf of the Opponents. During the course of hearing on admission, when we told the advocates that this is a fit case of admission, an application has been moved by the Learned Counsel for the Opponents to the effect that this case may be referred to some other hospital in view of the decision of the Honle Supreme Court in Martin F. Douza Vs. Mohd. Inshfaq ~ AIR-2009-SC-2049. We do not think it fit and proper to direct any further enquiry in the matter by medical experts from J.J. Hospital or any other Hospital for the simple reason that this is a simple case of res ipsa locquitor and on the face of it even by simply reading the case-papers presented by the Hospital, we are finding that there is negligence in not properly monitoring the Blood Sugar Level of the patient and in recklessly administering Tablet Glycomet to the patient which ultimately aggravated the patient overall health and on the fifth day the patient expired in the hospital itself. In this view of the matter, since it is a case of res ipsa locquitor we have no hesitation in admitting the complaint. The complaint as such is admitted. Notice after admission is waived by the Opponents. Opponents are hereby directed to file their written version on 26.03.2012. 2. We have heard Mr. Mudit Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. His main grievance is that the State Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction while making certain observations / findings at the stage of admission of the complaint itself which may cause prejudice to the case and cause of the petitioner / opposite party. Having gone through the observations (supra) made by the State Commission, we are also of the same opinion. Section 12(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 enjoins upon a Consumer Fora to examine the maintainability of a complaint before issuing notice to the opposite party. What a consumer fora is expected to examine at this stage is that the complainant raises a consumer dispute within the meaning of the Act; complainant is a consumer; and that the complaint is not barred by limitation as envisaged under section 24 of the Act besides that the complaint falls within its territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. If all the parameters laid down in the Act are satisfied, the consumer Fora must issue the notice to the opposite party(ies). If the consumer has decided to issue notice, no detailed orders / findings / observations are required to be noted down in the Order. Lest it may cause prejudice to the parties. In our view, the State Commission, in the present case, has over-stepped its jurisdiction by making certain findings in regard to negligence on the premise that the it was a case of res-ipsa-loquitur and no expert opinion would be necessary. The order, therefore, to the extent that it has recorded certain observations which may prejudice the case of the petitioner at the trial of the complaint need to be expunged. We order accordingly. However, all the questions of fact and law would be open for consideration before the State Commission at the time of the hearing of the complaint. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed off. A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the petitioner.