New Delhi, Legal Correspondent: The Supreme Court has clarified that the power of the Commission established under the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act to award compensation is separate from the authority of the State Medical Council to examine medical negligence allegations against professionals.
Apex Court Bench Observations
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra noted that the Commission’s power to grant compensation does not interfere with the State Medical Council’s jurisdiction over negligence complaints. The observation came while hearing a civil appeal against a Calcutta High Court order limiting the Commission’s authority.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from the treatment of the appellant’s mother at B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre in May 2017. After five days of treatment with no improvement, she was referred to the Calcutta Medical Research Institute. A discharge summary prepared by another doctor described her condition as “stable,” though she later passed away approximately 16 hours after transfer.
Allegations Against the Hospital
The patient’s son filed a complaint alleging medical negligence, including delays in transfer, improper medication, and misdiagnosis. The Commission issued notices and reviewed documents, including correspondence with the West Bengal Medical Council, before ordering the hospital to pay Rs 20 lakh in compensation.
High Court Challenge
A single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court upheld the Commission’s authority, but the Division Bench later ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate issues of negligence. The case then reached the Supreme Court to determine whether the Division Bench’s view was correct.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
The Apex Court held that the Commission had acted within its powers by examining deficiencies in patient care services. The court emphasized that assessing credentials of personnel providing care is part of ensuring accountability and transparency under Section 36 of the Act.
Distinction Between Negligence and Deficiency
The bench noted that the Commission did not adjudicate medical negligence but addressed deficiencies in patient care. Section 38 of the Act clearly assigns medical negligence complaints to State Medical Councils, while the Commission can independently assess whether clinical services were deficient.
Responsibility of Doctors
The Supreme Court highlighted that misrepresenting a patient’s condition, such as describing a critically ill patient as “stable,” cannot absolve doctors of responsibility. The bench observed that proper disclosure at the time of discharge might have enabled the family to make alternate decisions, potentially altering the outcome.
