ORDER 1. The appellant had undergone laser surgery in his right eye on 25-5-1995. On the allegation that the surgery had resulted in the loss of vision in his right eye, the appellant filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 3-9-1997. In support of his case the appellant relied upon the prescriptions which had been given to him by Dr. Chadha and Dr. Hari Mohan prior to the operation. The appellant also relied upon prescriptions given by Dr. Chadha and Dr. Hari Mohan subsequent to the operation. These documents, according to the appellant, showed that the appellant had normal vision in his right eye before the surgery which was lost subsequent thereto. 2. The appellant also relied upon a certificate issued by Dr. Sachdev of Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi dated 5-9-1997 to the effect that the appellant had lost vision in the right eye consequent upon the laser surgery. A similar certificate was also issued by Safdarjung Hospital on 13-12-2002. 3. The respondents have contended that the operation was duly conducted, that the appellant had a macular degenerative disease of the right eye which was a hopeless condition and that the laser treatment conducted by the respondents was the only step that could have been taken. It is further submitted that at least one of the doctors, namely, Dr. Hari Mohan who was claimed by the appellant to have examined the appellant after the operation, had written a letter to the respondent denying that the appellant had suffered any loss of vision by reason of the laser surgery. 4. There is some dispute as to whether the appellant had gone back to Respondent 1 institute after the operation. It appears to us likely on the basis of the pleadings that he has done so but that Respondents 2 and 3 were not present. Be that as it may, the appellants complaint was rejected by the National Forum by holding that the evidence adduced by the appellant did not support the appellants case. Doubt was also expressed in respect of the certificates submitted. It was also held that the appellant had failed to produce any expert evidence or medical literature in support of his case. The Commission came to the conclusion that the appellant had made "a false and uncorroborated statement in the complaint" which was accordingly dismissed with costs fixed at Rs 5000. 5. It was also held that the appellant had failed to produce any expert evidence or medical literature in support of his case. The Commission came to the conclusion that the appellant had made "a false and uncorroborated statement in the complaint" which was accordingly dismissed with costs fixed at Rs 5000. 5. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the National Commission and we deprecate the language in which the appellants complaint was rejected. Merely because the complainant is unable to prove his case that does not mean that he has come forward with a false case. However, in our opinion, the appellant was bound to produce expert evidence in support of his case. He made no attempt to summon either Dr. Chadha or Dr. Hari Mohan. It is true that he filed an application for summoning Dr. Sachdev and Dr. Sahai of Safdarjung Hospital. No steps were, however, taken to move the application. The various prescriptions relied upon by the appellant use terminology which may have supported the appellants case. But in the absence of any literature or evidence in support of the prescriptions, they have no value. The lacuna in the appellants evidence can only result in the dismissal of his complaint. The appellant has submitted that he may be referred to a medical expert of the Courts choice for the purpose of verifying whether the appellants case was true. Apart from the fact that about 9 years have passed since the date of the operation, we are of view that the procedural lacuna before the National Commission cannot be permitted to be made good at the appellate stage particularly when there is nothing on record to show that the appellant could not have made a similar prayer before the Commission which he did not do. 6. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. However, we expunge the remarks of the Commission against the appellant and also delete the requirement for payment of cost.