ORDER K. S. Gupta, Presiding Member—Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 19.3.2004 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant. 2. Appellant alleged that he admitted his daughter Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer who was suffering from high fever, in the opposite party hospital on 30.8.1997 and there she remained under the treatment of Doctor Harnath, Consultant Physician. Appellant noticed swelling on her eye lids and jaw, eyes were also blood shot and she had severe headache and restlessness. On being informed about swelling etc. Dr. Harnath told that appellant’s daughter would get well soon and the swelling was due to her posture. It was further alleged that on 4.9.1997, a lady doctor related to Mrs. Ebenezer asked the Ward Secretary to show her the case sheet but she refused. Lady doctor somehow found that the clinical test revealed ANA+++ and ESR 124 as against normal 0-30 mm/hr. The appellant was advised by the lady doctor that Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer be taken to CMC, Vellore, the disease being rare. Despite appellant’s insisting for discharge of her daughter on 4.9.1997 and onwards, she was discharged on 9.9.1997. Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer was taken to Vellore and admitted in CMC, Vellore where she expired on 24.9.1997. Appellant filed complaint seeking refund of amount of Rs. 1,604 charged and Rs. 16,00,000 as compensation for mental torture alleging negligence/deficiency in service in treatment in the respondent-hospital. Mainly the grievance of the appellant was that there has been delay of 6 days in discharging her daughter, deceased was not given medicines on certain date(s); treatment given was not as per established medical norms and dialysis was done without there being any necessity for it. Respondent contested the complaint by filing written version. It was not disputed that Mr. Lulu Ebenezer was admitted in hospital on 30.8.1997. However, it was pleaded that Dr. Harnath was not an employee of respondent-hospital but an independent consultant. Dr. Harnath is no more and the entire record of treatment given to Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer was maintained by Dr. Harnath and efforts made by the respondent to trace out that record were in vain. Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer was diagnosed systemic Lupus erythematosis (SLE) and hypothyroidism and suitable treatment was given to her. Along with letter dated 21.10.1997, the respondent had enclosed the break-up of the bill and the medicines used. Lulu Ebenezer was maintained by Dr. Harnath and efforts made by the respondent to trace out that record were in vain. Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer was diagnosed systemic Lupus erythematosis (SLE) and hypothyroidism and suitable treatment was given to her. Along with letter dated 21.10.1997, the respondent had enclosed the break-up of the bill and the medicines used. It was denied that dialysis was not required. It was stated that it was not known on what basis the C.M.C. doctor had opined that Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer did not require dialysis. Explanation has been given regarding delay in discharge of Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer. It was denied that there was any negligence in the treatment and/or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and respondent hospital is liable to pay the claimed amount. 3. Appellant filed his affidavit by way of evidence. However, despite opportunity being given, the respondent-hospital did not file any affidavit by way of evidence. 4. We have heard Shri Balaji for appellant and Shri C. Manishanker for respondent-hospital and have been taken through the record. 5. It is not in dispute that case was being conducted before the State Commission by the appellant in person. Copy of proof affidavit at page 24 filed during the course of argument would show that it is cryptic running into only 5 short paras. This may be on account of appellant not being aware of the procedural law. As noticed above, respondent hospital had neither adduced any evidence nor filed the record of treatment pertaining to Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer on ground of its being maintained by Dr. Harnath who is no more alive and record having not been made available to respondent-hospital. Obviously, due to non-adducing of evidence and of non-production of treatment record, the appellant was unable to elicit information about alleged negligence and/or adequacy/ inadequacy of treatment given to Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer in the respondent/hospital. In this backdrop, the case deserves to be remitted back to the State Commission for complaint being decided afresh on merit after providing opportunity to file affidavits/ addl. Affidavits by way of evidence to both the parties. Decision in Hameed (D) by LRs. and Ors. v. Kummottummal Kunhi P.P. Amma(d) by LRs. and Ors.1 relied upon by Shri Manishankar being distinguishable on facts, would not come in the way of remanding the matter to the State Commission. 6. Affidavits by way of evidence to both the parties. Decision in Hameed (D) by LRs. and Ors. v. Kummottummal Kunhi P.P. Amma(d) by LRs. and Ors.1 relied upon by Shri Manishankar being distinguishable on facts, would not come in the way of remanding the matter to the State Commission. 6. Accordingly, while allowing appeal, aforesaid order dated 19.3.2004 is set aside and case remanded to the State Commission for complaint being decided afresh on merits in the light of observation made in the preceding para. State Commission may call for expert evidence to ascertain if the treatment given to Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer in respondent hospital was as per medical norms. No order as to costs. 7. Both the parties will appear before the State Commission on 22.3.2007 for direction. Appeal allowed. Case remanded. *******