LI Network
Published on: December 30, 2023 at 12:45 IST
The Calcutta High Court has recently ruled that matters of medical negligence fall beyond the jurisdiction of the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission (WBCERC).
In a case involving the BM Birla Heart Research Centre, the High Court division bench, comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, set aside an order by a single bench.
The single bench had directed the appellant to deposit Rs 15 lakhs of a total of Rs 20 lakhs imposed by the WBCERC for what was deemed as “deficiency in service and negligence in diagnosis.”
The division bench held that issues concerning the failure to detect diseases, improper medication, incorrect diagnosis, and negligence all pertain to medical negligence.
Therefore, the Commission lacked the authority to adjudicate these matters. It also noted a lack of substantial evidence to attribute any delays solely to the clinical establishment.
The case stemmed from a complaint lodged with the WBCERC after a patient’s demise, citing negligence in detection, delays in shifting the patient, inadequate medication, improper diagnosis, and misguidance by the appellant organization.
The Commission, after reviewing certain reports and affidavits, directed the appellant to pay Rs 20 lakhs to the complainant. This decision was challenged before a single judge, who upheld the Commission’s findings, leading to the current appeal.
Arguments presented by the appellants centered on the competency of a doctor who conducted an Echocardiogram (ECG) on the deceased. They argued that the doctor had the requisite qualifications, contrary to the complainant’s allegations. Additionally, they contested the Medical Council of India’s stand, questioning the doctor’s entitlement to “perform and interpret” an ECG.
Respondents argued against interference in the single judge’s order or the Commission’s findings. They raised concerns about the qualifications of the lab technician and the doctor conducting the ECG.
Upon review, the High Court bench observed that the patient’s health deteriorated during her stay at the appellant establishment, eventually leading to her demise after being shifted to another hospital. The Court noted various medical conditions that could have contributed to her death, suggesting sepsis as a probable cause.
The Court ruled that issues regarding patient care and technical competency of doctors and technicians are beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission. Consequently, it set aside the Commission’s order demanding payment from the appellant.
While allowing the appeal, the Court emphasized that concerns of medical negligence should be addressed through the appropriate channels under the National Medical Council Act, leaving the option open for aggrieved parties to pursue these claims through the relevant forum.
