The Supreme Court docket not too long ago held that the Fee established beneath West Bengal Scientific Institutions Act, 2017 is entitled to adjudicate upon ‘deficiency in affected person care service’ in addition to to award compensation.
“Part 38 categorically offers that medical negligence complaints could be handled by the State Medical Councils. The Division Bench held that the Fee was not entitled to provide any discovering on this regard. The Fee in its judgment expressly states that they don’t seem to be getting into into the query of negligence. We discover that the Fee certainly had not. What it had achieved was take into account a grievance of deficiency in affected person care service and with a purpose to verify whether or not there was a deficiency or not regarded into the credentials of individuals offering the service. The identical is expressly permitted by this Part.”
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra rejected the competition that the problems of ‘medical negligence’ and ‘deficiency in affected person care service’ are so inextricably intertwined that the Fee can’t adjudicate upon ‘deficiency in service’ and solely the State Medical Council can return a discovering on ‘negligence’.
It noticed that Part 36 of the WBCE Act, which offers for institution of the Fee, incorporates the phrase ‘supervision’ and ‘supervision’ would essentially embrace making certain that each one personnel inside a medical institution are entitled by the use of their schooling and certification to be employed there.
The Court docket was coping with the case of 1 Kousik Pal, whose mom was admitted within the respondent-hospital for five days. On recommendation of the first guide, the petitioner’s mom was referred to a different hospital. Her discharge abstract, ready by one other physician, recorded that she was ‘steady’. However inside hours of the switch, the petitioner’s mom handed away. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a grievance towards the respondent-hospital, alleging negligence and improper analysis.
In 2018, the Fee established beneath WBCE Act held that the outline of the situation of petitioner’s mom as ‘steady’ was inaccurate. It additional discovered two medical doctors on the hospital (involved with the petitioner’s mom) unqualified to carry the positions that they did, ie Head, Non-Invasive Division and ECG Technician, and that the medical programs they pursued weren’t acknowledged with the involved Medical Council. This was held to be a deficiency in affected person care service and unethical commerce apply. The Fee directed cost of compensation of Rs.20 lakhs.
The Fee additionally took observe of the conduct of the physician who declared the petitioner’s mom ‘steady’ for switch, however didn’t go into the problem of medical negligence (being in purview of WBMC).
In enchantment by the respondent-hospital, a Single Decide of the Excessive Court docket upheld the Fee’s findings and held that it had the jurisdiction to enter the query of instructional {qualifications} of the medical doctors employed by the hospital. Later, a Division Bench overturned the findings of the Fee and the Single Decide, holding that the fabric didn’t point out a connection between the hospital’s conduct and the dying of the petitioner’s mom.
The Division Bench additionally noticed that disciplinary motion towards doctor claiming to be a specialist will be taken solely by the West Bengal Medical Council and the Fee couldn’t have held that the medical doctors weren’t certified to take the actions they did. It was additional held that medical negligence and affected person care are “so inextricably mingled up” that they can’t be separated and for the reason that challenge of negligence can solely be taken up by a specialised physique, the Fee couldn’t have adjudicated this challenge.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court docket.
On listening to the events and browsing the fabric, the highest Court docket disagreed with the Division Bench’s view. “Within the instantaneous case, the phrases described above would point out that the Fee in its jurisdiction would have the ability to make sure that the personnel employed by medical institutions are in accordance with the necessities laid down, thereby, complying with the benchmark” it famous.
It additional noticed that, “Making a easy assertion that the mom of the appellant had erroneously been described as ‘steady’ can’t and shouldn’t absolve the involved physician of duty”.
The Court docket additionally famous that as per Part 38(1)(x) of the WBCE Act, it’s the operate of the Fee to make sure that individuals employed are duly certified. Due to this fact, the Fee giving a discovering on qualification of those two individuals, is in accordance with the regulation. The Court docket additionally noticed from the penalties contemplated beneath the Act that the intention of the legislature behind its enactment was that the affected person be zealously safeguarded.
Setting apart the judgment of the Division Bench and restoring that of the Fee, the highest Court docket held,
“The Excessive Court docket gave too huge a berth to the State Medical Council leaving nearly no room for the Fee to operate. The ability to grant compensation as is given beneath this Act, is separate and distinct from the ability of the State Medical Council to look at the presence or absence of medical negligence on the a part of an expert, and it nowhere interferes with the ability of the State Medical Council to adjudicate the complaints of medical negligence. If the findings of the Division Bench are accepted that deficiency in affected person care service and medical negligence, in sure instances, are so enmeshed in each other that they can’t be separated, in fairly just a few instances the performance of the Fee could be rendered inconceivable defeating the legislative intent behind this Act.”
Case Title: KOUSIK PAL VERSUS B.M. BIRLA HEART RESEARCH CENTRE & ORS., SLP(C)No.8365/2024
Quotation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1248
Leave a Reply