Renuka Yara, J.

1. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

               “….. to issue an Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari declaring the order of the Respondent No.1 in dismissing the revision petition vide order dated 09.03.2026 filed by the Petitioner herein in R.P.No. 64 of 2025 against I.A.No.180 of 2025 in C.C.No. 512 of 2022 on the file of Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently allow the revision petition in R.P.No.64 of 2025 on the file of Respondent No.1 and allow the I.A.No.180 of 2025 in C.C.No.512 of 2022 on the file of Respondent No.2 and …..”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Nos.4 to 6 have filed Consumer Complaint dated 30.07.2022 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad (“the District Commission”) vide C.C.No.512 of 2022 against the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to 10 alleging medical negligence. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 sought compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and payment of Rs.3,10,000/- towards medical and funeral expenses. Said complaint originated from the instance of a patient by name Ettaboina Asaiah visiting the petitioner hospital on 22.04.2021 with complaint of lower backache followed by weakness of bilateral lower limbs and retention of urine. Prior to that, patient visited the private hospitals, took MRI and other tests and visited Gandhi Hospital. Lastly, the patient visited the petitioner hospital on 22.04.2021. The respondent No.7 examined the patient and diagnosed with L2, L3 Disc Bulge with left Forominal Stenosis. The patient was advised to undergo specific tests. Thereafter, after obtaining the diagnostic reports, the patient was advised to undergo L2, L3 disectomy and Laminectormy operation. The surgery was due to be performed on 26.04.2021. The patient joined the hospital on 25.04.2021. The surgery was performed and the patient was stabilized and finally discharged on 28.04.2021. After discharge, the patient went to his native place Mysampalli, Koheda Mandal of Siddipet District. The patient was suffering with hypertension and acute infection of blood. On 02.05.2021, the patient developed complications and consulted Emergency Contact Casualty over phone and was told he need not come to the hospital as there were no beds. Further, the doctors advised to stop taking drug namely Flexura-D and due to stopping of said medicine, the patient died on 03.05.2021. In the backdrop of death of patient, the complainants/ respondent Nos.4 to 6 alleged that the patient was suffering with hypertension and acute infection of blood, whereas the doctors without obtaining the opinion of Cardiologist and Anesthetist performed the surgery. Further allegation is that the patient was advised not to come to hospital on 02.05.2021 in spite of complications following the surgery and was orally advised not to take Flexura-D and said advise resulted in his death.

3. The petitioner and the respondent Nos.7 to 10 opposed the complaint denying the allegations of medical negligence or treating the patient in violation of procedures and protocols. When the matter was at the stage of further evidence of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 before the District Commission, they have filed a petition for expert opinion, vide I.A.No.218 of 2023. The petitioner and the respondent Nos.7 to 10 opposed the said I.A alleging that there was no need for an expert opinion. However, the District Commission allowed the petition and the respondent Nos.4 to 6 have submitted opinion of a doctor as PW2. Said doctor was cross examined by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Nos.4 to 6 have isolated certain aspects of treatment to suit their case and a new case is made up on the basis of deposition of expert doctor/PW2. In the circumstances, the petitioner and the respondent Nos.7 to 10 have filed Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.180 of 2025, dated 20.06.2025 to refer the medical record of deceased Ettaboina Asaiah to an expert neurosurgeon of any Government Medical Hospital for his opinion to determine whether there was any negligence on the part of the petitioner in treating the deceased patient. However, the District Commission dismissed the said I.A vide order dated 11.09.2025 on the premise that the opposite parties (petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to 10) cannot seek expert opinion when they have opposed seeking expert opinion in I.A.No.218 of 2023 filed by the respondent Nos.4 to 6/complainants.

4. Aggrieved by said order, the petitioner filed Review Petition vide R.P.No.64 of 2025 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Telangana at Hyderabad (“the State Commission”). The State Commission dismissed the R.P alleging that the petitioner sought expert opinion after completion of the trial based on complete record. It is held that the question of whether to seek an expert opinion is a matter of judicial discretion and that expert evidence was already available and said expert was subjected to cross examination. It is held that reopening the evidence would permit the petitioner to fill up the lacuna in his case, more so, after recording of evidence is completed, hence, the R.P was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been preferred.

5. In grounds of writ petition alleging medical negligence, it is pleaded that there is need for assistance of an independent medical expert for arriving at just and proper conclusion. The finding of the State Commission seeking an independent expert opinion amounting to approbation and reprobation, is denied. The petitioner resisted the I.A filed by respondent Nos.4 to 6 seeking expert opinion as the complete medical record was not made available to the expert. The expert examined by the respondent Nos.4 to 6 was a Diploma holder in Anesthesia who is not related to Neurosurgery speciality. As per the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, expert doctor must be one qualified in related speciality of medicine and therefore, the witness examined by the respondent Nos.4 to 6 is not the qualified expert witness. The witness examined by the respondent Nos.4 to 6 is an Anesthetist who is not qualified in the speciality of Neurosurgery. In the said backdrop, after completing recording of evidence of both the parties, there arose a need for examining an independent expert who specialized in Neurosurgery. It is further pleaded that the Members of the District Commission are not well versed with medical aspects to conclude the veracity of allegations made against the petitioner on the basis of affidavits filed by the rival parties. In the circumstances, it is prayed that the State Commission has erroneously dismissed the Review Petition.

6. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 filed counter opposing the writ petition questioning maintainability of the writ petition on account of lack of legality or perversity in the order passed by the State Commission in R.P.No.64 of 2025, the petition being filed at a belated stage after closing of evidence of both the parties, the petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate as there was opposition to examination of an expert by the petitioner in I.A.No.218 of 2023 and that permitting the petitioner to examine the expert would cause irreparable loss. Lastly, it is pleaded that permission to examine an expert is discretionary power but not mandatory as per judgment in the case of Saurabh Ambadekar & another v. Kalpshree Namdeo Patil. It is urged that already, there is evidence of PW2 on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 6 and that evidence of RW1 who is representing the petitioner. Both of them are medical experts and therefore, according to the respondent Nos.4 to 6, there is no need for examining any other witness as an expert that too for the purpose of filling in lacuna in the evidence of the petitioner.

7. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that there is a need to peruse the cross examination of witness PW2- Dr. G. Ravinder, who is working as Anesthesiologist and Civil Surgeon at Karimnagar Government Hospital. Said witness in his cross examination deposed that he completed Diploma in Anesthesia in 2008 and has no other medical qualification. Further, said PW2 has not been trained in Neurosurgery or as physician. As per deposition of PW2, he never examined deceased patient at any point of time and the opinion is given based on the case sheet and OP slips in Column No.3 of his affidavit. To a specific question, PW2 answered that the case sheet is incomplete and that the case sheet supplied does not contain doctor’s notes. Relevant portion of cross examination is extracted and produced below:

               “I am working in Government Hospital in Karimnagar as Civil Surgeon and Anesthesiologist. I completed my diploma in Anesthesia in 2008 except diploma in Anesthesia, I have no other medical qualification. I have not been trained in neurosurgery or physician.

               Q: There is no case sheet in the documents filed by the complainant.

               Ans: No. There is a case sheet but it is incomplete.

               It is true that there is no doctor notes in the documents but nurse’s treatment chart available HRCT report is there in the document but no X-ray report. It is not true to suggest that the patient has not given entire case sheet to me even though they have collected from the Court.”

8. In the context of the admissions made by PW2 during his cross examination, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment in the case of Ramesh Chandra Agarwal v. Regency Hospital Limited and others ((2009) 9 SCC 709), wherein it is held as follows:

               16. “…. The first and foremost requirement for an expert evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to hear the expert evidence. The test is that the matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the layperson. Thus, there is a need to hear an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled. The scientific question involved is assumed to be not within the court’s knowledge. Thus cases where the science involved, is highly specialized and perhaps even esoteric, the central role of an expert cannot be disputed. The other requirements for the admissibility of expert evidence are :

               (i) that the expert must be within recognized field of expertise,

               (ii) that the evidence must be based on reliable principles, and

               (iii) that the expert must be qualified in that discipline.

               20. An expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with other evidence of the case.”

9. On the basis of above findings, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the patient was treated for ailment related to lower back pain which falls under the category of neurology and therefore, an expert Neurosurgeon or Neurophysician would the qualified experts to provide opinion as to treatment provided by the petitioner hospital. It is urged that the witness PW2 is not an expert within recognized field of expertise i.e. neurosurgery and that he is not qualified in the discipline of neurology and therefore, his opinion would not be of assistance to the District Commission in forming an opinion about the negligence if any committed by the petitioner hospital. Further, reference is made to the case of Martin F.D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq ((2009) 3 SCC 1), wherein it is held that “when a complaint is received against a doctor or hospital by the Consumer Forum, the matter must be referred to a competent doctor or committee of doctors specialized in the field relating to which the medical negligence is attributed. Only when such doctor or committee opines that there is prima facie case of medical negligence, notice should be issued”. Further, it is held that the Courts and the Consumer Fora are not experts in medical science, and therefore, said Fora cannot substitute their own views as that of specialists.

10. With respect to maintainability of Writ of Certiorari, , the learned counsel for the petitioner referred the case of U.P.State Spinning Co. Ltd v. R.S.Pandey and another ((2005) 8 SCC 264), wherein it is held that “there are two well-recognized exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies. First is when the proceedings are taken before the forum under a provision of law which is ultra vires, the party may approach the High Court for quashing the proceedings. The second is that when the impugned order is made in violation of the principles of natural justice, the party may approach the High Court and in appropriate case, such writ petition may be entertained”.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others ((2003) 6 SCC 675), wherein it is held that the High Court has powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India to quash orders passed by the Tribunals if the findings of fact had been arrived at by non-consideration of the relevant and material documents. It is also held that the power of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be whittled down. As the same is inherent part of basic structure. Reference is also made to the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai ((1998) 8 SCC), about the power of the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India having discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental right or for violation of principles of natural justice or proceedings which are wholly without jurisdiction. Reference is further made to the case of M/s Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Aroush Motors and another (2025 INSC 1202), wherein it is held that the object of procedural law is to advance and not to scuttle it. Learned counsel further relied upon the case of Dwarika Prasad (D) Thr. LRs. v. Prithvi Raj Singh (2024 INSC 1030), wherein, it is held that Courts should not shut out cases on mere technicalities but rather afford opportunity to both the parties to put forth their case on merits.

12. A perusal of the record shows that the evidence of both the parties has been recorded before the District Commission and the matter stood at the stage of arguments. On behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 6, the witness PW1 (son of patient) and PW2, Anesthesiologist from Karimnagar Government Hospital have been examined. On behalf of the petitioner hospital, RW1 is examined. PW1 is a lay person, one of the complainants, who is aggrieved by the death of his father. The complainants/ respondent Nos.4 to 6 have examined PW2 as a medical expert in support of their case of medical negligence against the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to 10. The objection raised by the petitioner for examining PW2 is that he is Anesthesiologist who is not an expert in the field of Neurosurgery or Neurophysiology. As per PW2’s own evidence, except diploma in Anesthesia, he has no other medical qualification. Since PW2 is not an expert in the field of Neurosurgery or Neurophysiology, the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to 10 raised objection when the respondent Nos.4 to 6 proposed to obtain medical opinion from PW2. When PW2 is not a Neurosurgeon or Neurophysician, the objection raised by the respondent Nos.4 to 6 seems reasonable and justified.

13. As per the judgment of Ramesh Chandra Agarwal (1 supra), whenever an expert opinion is required, such expert should belong to recognized field of expertise as he is not qualified in that discipline. Such being the case, PW2 does not fall under the category of relevant field and expertise and nor is a person qualified in the discipline of Neurosurgery to give any opinion about the treatment given to the patient or about the protocols followed by the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to 10 or about the medical negligence leading to death of the patient.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6 alleged that the petitioner intends to protract the proceedings, that there was an objection on the part of the petitioner and the respondent Nos.7 to 10 for examining an expert in I.A.No.218 of 2023 when the same was pursued before the District Commission. Having objected to the examination of an expert, now it is not open for the petitioner to seek independent medical opinion as the same amounts to approbation and reprobation. It is also argued that the District Commission has discretionary power to examine an expert witness and there is no mandatory right for the petitioner to examine an expert on his behalf when RW1, a Neurosurgeon is already examined. Since RW1 who is an expert in the field of Neurosurgery is already examined, according to the respondent Nos.4 to 6, there is no need for examining any other witness. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6 challenged the maintainability of the writ petition alleging that there is neither failure in exercising jurisdiction nor exceeding jurisdiction.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6 has referred to the case of V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital and another ((2010) 5 SCC 513) for the finding that the purpose of Consumer Protection Act is to provide the forum for speedy and simple redressal of consumer disputes and that requirement of having expert evidence in cases of civil medical negligence would curtail the efficacy of the Act and remedy would become an illusion for a common man. Counsel referred to the case of State of Santhosh K.S S/o Sudhan v. State of Kerala (2024 LawSuit (Ker) 806) to contend that evidentiary value of the opinion of an expert depends on the reasons given by him in his report. Even so, in case, there is a direct evidence with respect to subject dealt by an expert, the court is not prevented from act on such direct evidence. Further, it is contended that the value of an expert opinion would be same as the evidence of any other witness and that reasons given by the expert in forming an opinion are always open to scrutiny. Also, reference is made to the case of Ratan Singh Rawat v. Kamal Singh Rawat and others (2018 (2) CGLJ1), wherein it is held that the principle behind Section 45 of the Evidence Act is that the opinion of witness possessing special skill is admissible whenever the subject is such that inexperienced persons are likely to prove or capable of forming the correct judgment upon it without assistance. Reference is also made to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.32889 of 2025, dated 10.12.2025 wherein, a Co-ordinate Bench of this court held that as per Section 38(7) of the Consumer Protect Act, 2019, every complaint shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made to decide the complaint within three months from the date of receipt of notice by the opposite party. On the basis of aforementioned, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6 argued that one expert witness is already examined on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 6, that RW1 himself is an expert witness and that evidence of both the parties is recorded, at this stage, reopening the evidence for obtaining independent expert opinion on behalf of the petitioner would defeat the very purpose of establishing the Consumer Redressal Forum meant for expeditious disposal of consumer grievance complaints.

16. When the stand of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 is examined, it is seen that they are availing the facility of examining an expert witness on their behalf by examining PW2. However, no reason is given for examining PW2 who is an Anesthesiologist from the Government Hospital, Karimnagar. In case, the respondent Nos.4 to 6 intended to prove medical negligence they ought to have examined Neurosurgeon or Neurophysician but not an Anesthesiologist. Said fact situation gives rise to a pertinent question as to whether PW2 who is an Anesthesiologist is examined only to support the case of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 and whether there was any doubt about an independent Neurosurgeon or Neurophysician not supporting the case of the respondent Nos.4 to 6. The second part of the argument is that RW1 who is a Neurosurgeon is already examined and therefore, there is no need for examining any other expert. The argument of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 is untenable as the evidence of RW1 can easily be discredited as being an interested witness who is actually facing the allegations of medical negligence. The evidence of RW1 would be castigated as self-serving evidence and would not stand the allegations leveled by the respondent Nos.4 to 6 about RW1 being responsible for medical negligence leading to death of the patient.

17. In this scenario, irrespective of the fact that RW1 is a Neurosurgeon and he is examined as a witness, his evidence is likely to be undermined in the face of evidence of PW2 who would appear to be independent witness. Therefore, the petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity to send the entire medical record along with the evidence on record to an expert in the field of Neurosurgery of any Government General Hospital as per choice of the District Commission to obtain an independent opinion about the alleged medical negligence leading to death of the patient.

18. In view of the aforementioned, we are of the considered opinion that both the District Commission and State Commission have failed to exercise jurisdiction in giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner to defend itself in a case of medical negligence and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to issuance of writ of certiorari.

19. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to judgment in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (5 supra) with respect to maintainability of writ of certiorari to counter the challenge posed by the respondent Nos.4 to 6 who alleged that there is no failure in exercise of jurisdiction and that the writ petition is not maintainable. In view of the finding given by this court that there is failure to exercise jurisdiction by the District Commission and the State Commission, the writ petition is maintainable.

20. In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 in R.P.No.64 of 2025, dated 09.03.2026. Consequently, I.A.No.180 of 2025 in C.C.No.512 of 2022 on the file of respondent No.2 stands allowed. All connected applications stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.