1. Affidavit - of - service filed in Court be taken on record.

2. The dispute in the present writ petition has its origin in a tragic incident involving the death of a mother, who passed away on the very same day she gave birth to her child at Megacity Nursing Home, a clinical establishment within the meaning of S.2(c) of the West Bengal Clinical Establishment (Registration, Regulation, and Transparency) Act, 2017 (hereafter referred to as the 2017 Act). The deceased woman had been under the continuous supervision of Dr. Gauranga Kumar Ghatak, M.D. (Gynaecology).

3. At an advanced stage of her pregnancy, following the advice of Dr. Ghatak, she was admitted to the nursing home on 29th October .2019. A female child was delivered by caesarean section at approximately 9:00 AM in the morning. The procedure itself appeared to proceed without complications. However, at around 1:00 PM, the patient's blood pressure reportedly began to drop, and her condition deteriorated rapidly. By 5:00 PM, her condition had worsened and she was placed on a ventilator, but unfortunately, she passed away shortly thereafter.

4. These events prompted the husband of the deceased, the respondent no.4 herein, to file a complaint with the Clinical Regulatory Commission, alleging medical negligence on the part of the attending doctor and the medical staff of the nursing home. Following an enquiry, the Commission issued an order on 15th February, 2021, concluding that there was negligence in the patient care services provided by the nursing home. The Commission awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and directed the nursing home to pay this amount to respondent no.4.

5. Aggrieved by this order, the nursing home, as the clinical establishment in question, has approached this Court by way of this writ petition.

6. Mr. Das, the learned advocate representing the petitioner, draws my attention to the complaint lodged by respondent No.4, highlighting that the primary allegation in the complaint was medical negligence on the part of the attending doctor. Referring to S.38 of the 2017 Act, which outlines the powers and functions of the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission, he argues that the Commission lacks the authority to determine medical negligence on the part of a clinical establishment. He further contends that such power is vested with the Medical Council, not the Commission.

7. Additionally, Mr. Das points out that while S.44 of the Act empowers the Commission to record evidence before arriving at a conclusion, the Commission failed to record any evidence in this case and abruptly jumped to its conclusion. He submits that the Commission's order, being both erroneous and illegal, if allowed to stand, would result in a miscarriage of justice.

8. Mr. Saha, the learned advocate representing respondent No.4, draws my attention to certain portions of the Commission's order and argues that the nursing home has effectively accepted the order. He contends that, before the Commission, the nursing home had sought a reduction in the amount of compensation awarded.

9. Mr. Saha submits that the respondent No.4 had also lodged a complaint before the Medical Council. He presents the evidence recorded during the proceedings before the Medical Council, along with the testimony of a medical expert who had testified before the Medical Council. He highlights that the expert categorically observed that although the operating surgeon and his assistant were repeatedly requested by the RMO to attend to the patient over a span of about six hours, they failed to do so. Additionally, Mr. Saha refers to the medical expert's remark that the nursing home is becoming a "human slaughterhouse,". The portions of the evidence produced by respondent no. 4 are duly taken on record.

10. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate representing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 drawing my attention to a portion of the order, submits that before the Commission the representative of the clinical est