Compensation awarded for medical negligence must be just and adequately reasoned as per statutory provisions.

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of the order dated 08.11.2021 passed by the West Bengal Clinical Establishment and Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) in Case No. INT/KOL/2021/506. By the said order, the Commission directed the Clinical Establishment to grant an additional deduction of Rs. 1 (one) lakh to the petitioner.

2. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that following an episode of cerebral stroke, the patient, namely Dulal Chandra Ghosh (since deceased), a relative of the complainant/petitioner, was admitted to Seba Magnum PPL Hospital (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Clinical Establishment’), located at DD-35, Sector-I, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064l, on 21.08.2021. At the time of admission, the patient’s relatives were informed that initially, the patient would be placed in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for a period of four days, following which he would be shifted to a general bed. An estimated cost of approximately Rs. 80,000 to Rs. 90,000 was provided for the entire course of treatment.

3. Mr. Chakraborty further submits that during his rounds on 25.08.2021, Dr. Biswas, under whose supervision the patient was admitted, noticed swelling in a portion of the left femur over the hip joint. As evident from Dr. Biswas’s submission before the Commission, an X-ray was immediately done, revealing that the patient had suffered a fracture as a result of falling from the bed. However, the Hospital, in its justification before the Commission, claimed that the patient had attempted to jump from the bed.

4. He further submits that and subsequently, on 28.08.2021, the patient’s relatives were asked to deposit an additional sum of Rs. 50,000 towards the cost of surgery required to treat the fracture. This amount was deposited on the same day, and the surgery was performed on 29.08.2021. He submits that due to this incident, the patient had to remain hospitalized for an extended period, during which he also developed bedsores.

5. According to Mr. Chakraborty, the incident of the fracture and the development of bedsores were direct result of the deficiency in the service provided by the Hospital, and had there been no such deficiency, the patient would not have required an extended stay. He submits that ultimately, the Hospital charged a sum of Rs. 4,15,069/-. However, a deduction of Rs. 53,069/- was given by the Hospital, acknowledging their deficiency in service.

6. Confronted with such a situation, the petitioner was compelled to lodge a complaint before the Commission. After hearing the representatives of both the Hospital and the petitioner, the Commission directed a discount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Eventually, the case was concluded by directing the Clinical Establishment to pay the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in ten equal monthly installments within the time specified in the order.

7. Mr. Chakraborty submits that the amount awarded can never be considered just compensation for the deficiency in service by the Hospital, which led to the patient’s prolonged stay and poor prognosis. He further submits that, following the incident, the patient had been compelled to use a wheelchair for the rest of his life. He, therefore, prays for an appropriate direction upon the concerned Hospital to pay just and adequate compensation.

8. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate representing the Commission, submits that the entire episode concerning the treatment of the patient at the Hospital indicates medical negligence and deficiency in service. Accord