A patient pursuing a medical negligence complaint sought intervention from one of the country’s premier medical institutes, arguing that expert evaluation was essential before the dispute could proceed further.



The request, however, raised a larger medico-legal question before the Commission: are consumer courts required to obtain expert medical opinion in every negligence case?



The dispute arose from treatment relating to an ophthalmic condition. During proceedings before the District Commission, the complainant moved an application seeking constitution of an expert panel from PGIMER Chandigarh to evaluate the alleged negligence.



According to the complainant, the medical issues involved were highly technical and could not be properly assessed without specialised expert scrutiny.



The treating doctor opposed the request.



It was argued that the burden to prove negligence remained on the complainant and that consumer fora are not obligated to constitute expert panels merely because one party seeks it.



The defence also pointed out that the patient had already obtained treatment and opinion from another specialised eye institute rather than acting upon an earlier referral to PGI.



The Commission sided with the broader procedural principle.



It observed that while expert medical opinion can be valuable in complex negligence disputes, consumer courts are not bound to seek such opinion in every case as a matter of routine. Whether expert assistance is necessary depends on the facts and complexity of each matter.



Importantly, the District Commission had not permanently ruled out expert involvement. It had merely held that if complicated issues arose at the final stage requiring specialised evaluation, expert opinion could still be sought later.



Upholding that approach, the Commission reiterated that courts cannot become evidence-collecting agencies for litigating parties.



The ruling highlights an important procedural dimension in medical negligence litigation: expert opinion may illuminate a case, but its invocation remains a matter of judicial discretion, not automatic entitlement.



Source: Order pronounced by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 27th April, 2026.