Clinical Establishment Commission Can Adjudicate Qualifications And Award Compensation, Supreme Court Holds

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra heard an appeal by Kousik Pal arising under Article 136 of the Constitution, challenging a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which had held that the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission (WBCE Commission) lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints of deficiency in patient care and to examine the qualifications of hospital personnel.

The Court allowed the appeal, restored the Commission’s judgment dated 2 February 2018 and the Single Judge’s order of 24 September 2019, and set aside the Division Bench’s order dated 15 December 2023. The Court held that the statutory scheme of the WBCE Act, 2017 permitted the Commission to examine whether clinical establishments employed “properly trained and qualified” persons and to adjudicate complaints of deficiency in patient care and to award compensation under the Act. The Court noted that the Commission had expressly not entered into the question of medical negligence and had limited itself to deficiency in patient care and the credentials of personnel. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Therefore, in our considered view, the Commission was well within its jurisdiction in giving the findings that were challenged in the writ appeal before the High Court. ... The power to grant compensation as is given under this Act, is separate and distinct from the power of the State Medical Council to examine the presence or absence of medical negligence on the part of a professional, and it nowhere interferes with the power of the State Medical Council to adjudicate the complaints of medical negligence. If the findings of the Division Bench are accepted that deficiency in patient care service and medical negligence, in certain cases, are so enmeshed in one another that they cannot be separated, in quite a few cases the functionality of the Commission would be rendered impossible defeating the legislative intent behind this Act.” The Court directed payment of the compensation awarded by the Commission to the appellant within eight weeks with 6% interest from the date of the Commission’s award and ordered no costs.

Background

The dispute arose after Ms. Arati Pal was admitted to B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre and, following a recommendation to transfer by her consultant, was shifted to another hospital in the early hours of 8 May 2017 and died approximately 16 hours later. Her son filed a complaint asserting “negligence in detection and causing delay in shifting the patient ... not applying proper medication ... improper diagnosis and negligency and misguiding the patient party.” The WBCE Commission found lapses including that a discharge summary described the patient as “stable” contrary to records, that an Echocardiogram and echoscreening had been “done by an unqualified doctor and a person claiming to be an Echocardiography Technician,” and held there was deficiency in patient care and unethical trade practice; it awarded Rs.20 lakh as compensation.

The respondent hospital approached the Calcutta High Court. A learned Single Judge upheld the Commission’s jurisdiction to examine qualifications and patient-care deficiencies, but on revision the Division Bench overturned those findings, holding that questions of professional qualification and medical negligence fell within the exclusive domain of the State Medical Council and specialized bodies. The Supreme Court examined the WBCE Act, 2017 — particularly Sections 29, 33, 36 and 38 — and the scheme which aimed to ensure registration, regulation, transparency and minimum standards in clinical establishments. The Court held that the Commission’s power to “ensure that only properly trained medical and para-medical personnel ... are employed” (Section 38(1)(x)) and its power to award compensation (Section 38(1)(ix) and Section 33) enabled it to adjudicate deficiencies in patient care without displacing the State Medical Council’s role to deal with professional negligence. The Court therefore restored the Commission’s findings, directed payment of the awarded compensation with interest within the stipulated timeframe, and disposed of pending applications.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1487 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8365/2024) Case Title: KOUSIK PAL v. B.M. BIRLA HEART RESEARCH CENTRE & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]