1. Complaint against clinical establishment for deficiency in patient care service and employment of unqualified personnel leading to death — Jurisdiction under West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act, 2017. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 2103
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Kousik Pal - Appellant
Versus
B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 15066 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8365 of 2024)
Decided On : 19-12-2025
Important Points
The Commission under the WBCE Act, 2017 can adjudicate on deficiencies in service related to medical qualifications and award compensation, separate from medical negligence claims.
Subject
Medical Malpractice - Jurisdiction and Compensation
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017 - Jurisdiction of the Commission - Issue of negligence in medical practices - Commission properly adjudicated on qualifications of medical staff and awarded compensation for deficiencies in service. (Paras 2, 14, 15)
(B) Medical negligence - Medical negligence and deficiency in service are interconnected and must be addressed independently by relevant authorities. (Paras 12.4, 12.6)
(C) Professional qualifications - The Commission found that Dr. Giri and Ms. Kundu lacked the necessary qualifications to perform their duties, establishing a major deficiency in service that led to the patient's death. (Paras 12.1, 12.2)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's mother suffered from acute coronary syndrome. After being treated in the respondent-hospital, she was deemed 'stable' and subsequently died during transfer to another facility. The appellant alleged negligence.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Commission's findings regarding deficiencies in service due to unqualified staff, restoring the compensation order to be paid to the appellant.
Issues: Whether the Commission had jurisdiction to assess medical qualifications and award compensation for deficiency in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission has the authority to evaluate the qualifications of medical personnel and award compensation for deficiencies, as they are intertwined with service provision.
Result: Appeal allowed; findings and compensation order of the Commission restored.
(B) Medical negligence - Medical negligence and deficiency in service are interconnected and must be addressed independently by relevant authorities. (Paras 12.4, 12.6)
(C) Professional qualifications - The Commission found that Dr. Giri and Ms. Kundu lacked the necessary qualifications to perform their duties, establishing a major deficiency in service that led to the patient's death. (Paras 12.1, 12.2)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's mother suffered from acute coronary syndrome. After being treated in the respondent-hospital, she was deemed 'stable' and subsequently died during transfer to another facility. The appellant alleged negligence.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Commission's findings regarding deficiencies in service due to unqualified staff, restoring the compensation order to be paid to the appellant.
Issues: Whether the Commission had jurisdiction to assess medical qualifications and award compensation for deficiency in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission has the authority to evaluate the qualifications of medical personnel and award compensation for deficiencies, as they are intertwined with service provision.
Result: Appeal allowed; findings and compensation order of the Commission restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- health law
- tort
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pranjal Kishore, AOR Mr. Vivekananda Bose, Adv. Mr. Ratikanta Pal, Adv. Mr. Nagarjun Sahu, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Rakhi Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Ms. Talat Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Usman Siddiqui, Adv. Mrs. Aisha Siddiqui, Adv. Ms. Sakeena Quidwai, Adv. Ms. Tasleem Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Salman Siddiqui, Adv. Ms. Nandini Sen Mukherjee, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pranjal Kishore, AOR Mr. Vivekananda Bose, Adv. Mr. Ratikanta Pal, Adv. Mr. Nagarjun Sahu, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Rakhi Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Ms. Talat Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Usman Siddiqui, Adv. Mrs. Aisha Siddiqui, Adv. Ms. Sakeena Quidwai, Adv. Ms. Tasleem Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Salman Siddiqui, Adv. Ms. Nandini Sen Mukherjee, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate qualifications of medical staff and deficiency in patient care service, or if such matters fall exclusively under State Medical Council. (Para 2 , 7 )
3. The Commission is empowered to ensure personnel are qualified to maintain minimum standards of patient care service, distinct from adjudicating professional medical negligence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Power to award compensation for deficiency in patient care service under the WBCE Act is distinct from the State Medical Council's power to adjudicate medical negligence. (Para 14 )
5. Appeal allowed — Division Bench judgment set aside — Commission's findings and compensation award restored. (Para 15 )
6. Does the Commission under the WBCE Act, 2017 have the authority to examine the qualifications of medical personnel employed by a clinical establishment?
Yes. Section 38(1)(x) specifically mandates the Commission to ensure that only properly trained medical and para-medical personnel are employed. This is essential to preserve minimum standards of facilities and services as envisioned in the Act's Preamble. (Para 10 , 12 )
7. Is the Commission's power to adjudicate deficiency in patient care service limited by the State Medical Council's jurisdiction over medical negligence?
No. While complaints of medical negligence against professionals are dealt with by State Medical Councils, the Commission can adjudicate deficiency in patient care service and award compensation, as these are separate and distinct powers. (Para 12 , 14 )
8. Under what conditions can the Commission award compensation for the death of a service recipient?
Under Section 33, if a clinical establishment causes injury or death due to negligence or any deficiency in providing service, the Commission may direct the payment of compensation after substantiating the charges. (Para 10 , 12 )
9. How does the WBCE Act, 2017 define a service provider in the context of qualifications?
A service provider includes medical doctors, nurses, and other paramedical professionals who must be appropriately trained and qualified persons with specific skills relevant to particular healthcare services. (Para 10 , 12 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave Granted.
PREAMBLE AND BACKGROUND
2. At the heart of this dispute between the appellant, who is aggrieved by the loss of his mother, and the respondent-hospital, is a question of jurisdiction. The apparent tussle is between the Commission established by the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 20171[ Hereinafter, referred to as WBCE Act, 2017] and the State Medical Council. As per the Commission2[By judgment dated 2nd February 2018 in Complaint ID: HGY/2017/000069 titled Mr. Koushik Pal v. B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre & Ors.] and the learned Single Judge3[By judgment dated 24th September 2019 in C.O.No.2050 (W) of 2018, being Dr. Ashok Kumar Giri alias Ashok Giri v. Mr. Koushik Pal & Anr.], the Commission had the authority to adjudicate the instant appellant’s complaint, alleging deficiency in service and negligence in detection/diagnosis and treatment by one Dr. Shuvo Dutta, an employee of respondent- hospital. However, vide the impugned judgment dated 15th December 2023, the learned Division Bench in MAT 1595 of 2019 overruled the said findings, holding that the Commission did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate issues of negligence and alleged deficiency in practice. Since both these aspects are inextricably intertwined, they are required to be taken up and looked into by a specialized body. This Court is now called upon to, in this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, examine the correctness of the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta.
3. The facts, which gave rise to the present appeal, are that the appellant’s mother, namely Ms. Arati Pal was admitted at respondent-hospital for treatment, when having been there for five days her situation did not improve, she was referred to the Calcutta Medical Research Institute on 07th May, 2017. Pursuant to such recommendation of transfer being made by her primary consultant Dr. Shuvo Dutta, which was apparently around 9:15 pm, the discharge summary was prepared by Dr. Tanmoy Chakraborty, who described her as being in ‘stable condition’. She was shifted to the said hospital on 8th May 2017 in the early hours of the morning around 1:45 a.m. Shortly thereafter, approximately 16 hours later, she passed away. On 12th May 2017, the appellant filed a complaint against the respondent- hospital stating as follows :
“Negligence in detection and causing delay in shifting the patient from the hospital. Not applying proper medication to the patient improper diagnosis and negligency and misguiding the patient party.”
Notice was issued that the Commission would hear the matter. Over some time, various documents were submitted including correspondence with and from the West Bengal Medical Council.
THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
4. By judgment and order dated 2nd February 2018, the Commission arrived at the following conclusions and findings :
First, that the lapse on part of Dr. Chakraborty, in describing the condition of the deceased as ‘stable’, which he, in his affidavit to the Commission, described as an error and “not a mere clerical mistake”.
Second, in view of the first proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 38 of the WBCE Act, 2017, they did not give any finding regarding this act of Dr. Chakraborty and whether it amounts to medical negligence.
Third, Dr. Ashok Giri who was the Head of the Non- Invasive Department at the respondent-Hospital, and Ms. Chaitali Kundu, ECG Technician, were unqualified to hold the positions and carry out the acts that they did. Qua Dr. Giri it was held that since the Post-Graduate Diploma in Clinical Cardiology undertaken by him from the Indira Gandhi National Open University is not recognized by the Medical Council of India4[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘MCI’] or the West Bengal State Medical Council5[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘WBMC’], he was not entitled to practice in the specialty concerned, and so, his report deciding the course of treatmen
