SC Clarifies Role of WB Clinical Establishments Commission
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the Commission established under the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act, 2017 (WBCE Act), is entitled to adjudicate complaints of ‘deficiency in patient care service’ and grant compensation, independent of the State Medical Council’s jurisdiction over medical negligence.
Separation of Negligence and Deficiency in Service
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra rejected arguments that deficiency in patient care and medical negligence are so intertwined that the Commission cannot act. The Court clarified that while medical negligence complaints are addressed by the State Medical Council, the Commission can assess service deficiencies and award compensation accordingly.
Legal Provisions Cited by SC
The Court referred to Sections 36 and 38 of the WBCE Act. Section 38 allows the State Medical Council to handle negligence cases, while the Commission may consider the credentials of personnel and ensure accountability and transparency in patient care under Section 36. The judgment emphasized that transparency requires accurate communication to patients’ families.
Background of the Case
The case involved treatment of the appellant’s mother at B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre in May 2017. After five days of treatment without improvement, she was referred to Calcutta Medical Research Institute. Approximately 16 hours after the transfer, she passed away, prompting her son to file a complaint alleging delays, improper diagnosis, and unqualified personnel handling key procedures.
Commission’s Initial Decision
The Commission investigated the matter, reviewed correspondence with the West Bengal Medical Council, and in February 2018 ordered the hospital to pay Rs 20 lakh compensation. It found that critical procedures for Acute Coronary Syndrome, including Echocardiogram and Echoscreening, were performed by an unqualified doctor and an alleged technician.
High Court Challenges
A Single Judge bench of the Calcutta High Court upheld the Commission’s authority. However, the Division Bench later held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate alleged deficiencies or negligence, prompting the matter to reach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Verdict
The Supreme Court observed that the Commission acted well within its jurisdiction and that restricting its power would defeat the legislative intent. It clarified that granting compensation under the Act is distinct from the State Medical Council’s role in determining negligence.
Legislative Intent Protected
The bench emphasized that accepting the High Court’s Division Bench view would render the Commission almost non-functional. “The power to grant compensation is separate and does not interfere with the State Medical Council’s authority on medical negligence. Deficiency in patient care and negligence can be assessed independently, as intended by the legislature,” the verdict noted.
