JUDGMENT 1. Delay condoned. 2. The appellant has filed a complaint, complaining of medical negligence on the part of the respondents before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("NCDRC"). 3. At the interim stage, the appellant sought a direction for the constitution of a medical board by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences to report on the treatment afforded to the deceased, on the basis of the records of the case. 4. The NCDRC rejected the application, though with the observation that it would be open to the appellant to produce his own evidence in support of the complaint. 5. We find that the order of the NCDRC granting liberty to the appellant to do so and hence declining to entertain the application is unexceptionable. The burden of proving medical negligence lies on the appellant. The forum of the NCDRC cannot be utilised to collect evidence on behalf of the complainant. The complainant must discharge the burden of proving medical negligence. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has adverted to section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which reads as follows: "13 (4) For the purposes of this section, the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:- (i) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath; (ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence; (iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits; (iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source; (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness; and (vi) Any other matter which may be prescribed." 7. The forum constituted under the Act undoubtedly has the jurisdiction to requisition a report from any relevant source in a situation where it considers necessary or appropriate in the interest of justice to do so under Section 13(4)(iv). However, clause (iv) above does not displace the initial burden which is cast on the appellant to establish a case of medical negligence by leading evidence. 8. However, clause (iv) above does not displace the initial burden which is cast on the appellant to establish a case of medical negligence by leading evidence. 8. In the present case, we see no reason to differ with the view of the NCDRC, that it is for the appellant to establish a case of medical negligence. 9. Hence, the civil appeals are dismissed for the above reasons. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.