Power To Grant Compensation Is Separate From Power Of State Medical Council To Examine Medical Negligence: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has clarified that the power to grant compensation is separate and distinct from the power of the State Medical Council (SMC) to examine the presence or absence of medical negligence on the part of a professional.

The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench, which held that the Commission did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate issues of negligence and alleged deficiency in practice.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra held, “… 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 High Court gave too wide a berth to the State Medical Council leaving almost no room for the Commission to function. 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.”

The Bench added that 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 the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017 [WBCE Act].

AOR Pranjal Kishore represented the Appellant, while AOR Chand Qureshi represented the Respondents.

Case Background

The Appellant’s mother was admitted at the Respondent hospital (B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre) for treatment, when having been there for five days her situation did not improve, she was referred to the Calcutta Medical Research Institute in May 2017. Pursuant to such recommendation of transfer being made by the primary consultant, the discharge summary was prepared by the doctor who described her as being in ‘stable condition’. She was shifted to the said hospital in the early hours of the morning and shortly thereafter, approximately 16 hours later, she passed away. The Appellant filed a complaint against the Respondent hospital, alleging medical negligence.

Notice was issued that the Commission established by WBCE Act would hear the matter. Over some time, various documents were submitted including correspondence with and from the West Bengal Medical Council. As per the Commission and the High Court’s Single Judge, the Commission had the authority to adjudicate the Appellant’s complaint. However, the Division Bench held that the Commission did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate issues of negligence and alleged deficiency in practice. Hence, the Apex Court was called upon to examine the correctness of the view taken by the Division Bench.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in the above regard, said, “Section 36, which provides for the establishment of the Commission, uses the word supervision, the phrase ensuring accountability and transparency by the establishment in providing patient care services. Supervision would, in our view, necessarily include ensuring that all personnel within a clinical establishment are entitled by way of their education and certification to be employed there. Transparency necessarily implies that the concerned doctor should inform the family/attendants of the patient about the true picture of the condition of the patient. This was not done.”

The Court observed that making a simple statement that the mother of the Appellant had erroneously been described as ‘stable’ cannot and should not absolve the concerned doctor of responsibility.

“It is quite possible that if the doctor preparing the discharge paper had indicated to the appellant the precarious condition of his mother at the time when discharge was being carried out, he could have taken an alternate decision and possibly she would have lived to fight for her life for another day”, it remarked.

The Court further noted that Section 38 of the Act categorically provides that medical negligence complaints would be dealt with by the State Medical Councils.

“The Division Bench held that the Commission was not entitled to give any finding in this regard. The Commission in its judgment expressly states that they are not entering into the question of negligence. We find that the Commission indeed had not. What it had done was consider a complaint of deficiency in patient care service and in order to ascertain whether there was a deficiency or not looked into the credentials of persons providing the service. The same is expressly permitted by this Section”, it also said.

Conclusion

The Court was of the view that composition of the Commission also includes persons from the medical field and the findings returned by it cannot be said to be without consideration of the medical aspect involved.

“The findings of the Commission given by its judgment dated 2nd February 2018, as confirmed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 24th September 2019 are restored”, it ordered.

Furthermore, the Court directed that the compensation awarded by the Commission shall be paid within 8 weeks along with 6% interest from the date of award.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and restored the findings of the Commission as confirmed by the Single Judge.

Cause Title- Kousik Pal v. B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1487)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Pranjal Kishore, Advocates Vivekananda Bose, Ratikanta Pal, and Nagarjun Sahu.

Respondents: AORs Chand Qureshi, Nandini Sen Mukherjee, Advocates Rakhi Banerjee, Mujahid Ahmad, Talat Chaudhary, Mohammad Usman Siddiqui, Aisha Siddiqui, Sakeena Quidwai, Tasleem Siddiqui, and Salman Siddiqui.

Click here to read/download the Judgment