There may be simple cases of medical negligence where expert evidence is not needed. In a judgment dated 8th March, 2010 in Civil Appeal No. 2641 / 2010 titled“V. Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital & Anr,” the Supreme Court of India held:  

“This Court however makes it clear that before the consumer Fora if any other parties wants to adduce expert evidence, the members of the Fora by applying their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record can allow the parties to adduce such evidence if it is appropriate to do so in the facts of the case. The discretion in this matter is left to the members of Fora especially when retired judges of Supreme Court and High Court are appointed to head National Commission and the State Commission respectively. Therefore, these questions are to be judged on the facts of each case and there cannot be a mechanical or strait jacket approach that each and every case must be referred to experts for evidence. When the Fora find that expert evidence is required, the Fora must keep in mind that an expert witness in a given case normally discharges two functions.

1. The first duty of the expert is to explain the technical issues as clearly as possible so that it can be understood by a common man.
2. The other function is to assist the Fora in deciding whether the acts or omissions of the medical practitioners or the hospital constitute negligence.”

In complicated cases where expert evidence is required the parties have a right to go to the Civil Court. That right of the parties to go to Civil Court is preserved under Section 3 of the Act. 

Comment: The courts may not call experts in several situations. Therefore, it is better that when you reply, you submit the opinions of the experts in anticipation.