The Supreme Court ruled that the Commission established under the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017 is entitled to adjudicate complaints of “deficiency in patient care service” and to award compensation in appropriate cases, and that this power is distinct from the jurisdiction of the State Medical Council to deal with medical negligence. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra heard an appeal arising out of conflicting views between the Commission and the Calcutta High Court on the scope of the Commission’s powers under the Act. The case concerned a complaint filed by a petitioner whose mother had been treated at a hospital and later died shortly after being transferred to another medical facility. The petitioner alleged that the hospital’s conduct, including recording her condition as “stable” at the time of transfer, was erroneous and that deficiencies in patient care contributed to her death. Under the Act, the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Regulatory Commission had found that the description of the patient’s condition was incorrect and that certain personnel at the hospital were not duly qualified for their positions. These findings were treated as deficiencies in patient care service and as unethical trade practices, and the Commission directed the hospital to pay compensation of twenty lakh rupees.
The Commission expressly refrained from entering into the question of medical negligence, a matter which Section 38 of the Act provides would be dealt with by the State Medical Councils. However, the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench had overturned the Commission’s order, holding that the Commission lacked jurisdiction because issues of medical negligence and deficiency in patient care were inextricably linked, and that only the State Medical Council could consider allegations of negligence and incompetence. The High Court also took the view that disciplinary action against medical practitioners regarding their qualifications was within the exclusive domain of the Medical Council. The petitioner challenged the Division Bench’s decision before the Supreme Court.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s reasoning and restored the Commission’s order. The top Court clarified that the Commission’s authority under the Act includes ensuring that clinical establishments maintain standards of care and that personnel employed are duly qualified, with the power to consider whether there has been a deficiency in the services provided to patients. It held that interpreting the Act to deprive the Commission of the ability to adjudicate on service deficiencies merely because they may be related to clinical practice would frustrate the legislative intent behind the Act, which aims to provide comprehensive regulatory oversight and patient protection. The Supreme Court observed that the presence of provisions granting the State Medical Council jurisdiction over medical negligence complaints does not nullify the Commission’s separate power to examine deficiencies in patient care and to award compensation where appropriate. The bench emphasised that the power to grant compensation under the Act is distinct and independent from the Medical Council’s disciplinary jurisdiction, and that allowing the two to be conflated would render the Commission’s role ineffective.
The Supreme Court noted that the Commission had not ventured into a finding on medical negligence per se, but had legitimately focused on deficiency in service, including employment of inadequately qualified personnel and incorrect clinical reporting, consistent with the functions envisioned under the statute. It further observed that supervision and regulatory oversight under the Act necessarily encompass ensuring that clinical establishments adhere to standards for staff qualifications and service delivery. In reaffirming the Commission’s jurisdiction, the Court stressed that the legislative purpose of the Act was to protect patients zealously and to provide a mechanism for redress against substandard healthcare practices, without impinging on the Medical Council’s separate disciplinary role. By setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the Commission’s decision, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Commission can both determine deficiency in patient care service and award compensation to aggrieved complainants, thereby reinforcing regulatory oversight and patient rights under the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.