actionable negligence on part of the medical expert. 12. The NCDRC itself acknowledged that Dr. Neeraj Sud had the necessary professional qualification and expertise to treat the patient but it has granted compensation only for the reason that he did not bring the requisite skill and care in the treatment of the patient. 13. The said finding is based on no evidence insofar as the complainants have not adduced any evidence to prove any negligence on part of the doctor rather have relied upon the medical records produced by the PGI. The said records merely demonstrate that post-surgery the condition of the patient had not improved but has deteriorated which as stated earlier may not be indicative of the negligence in the treatment of the patient. 14. It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage. However, a simple lack of care, an 7error of