The Supreme Court has restored a ₹20 lakh compensation awarded to a Kolkata man for the death of his mother, holding that the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission had the jurisdiction to examine deficiencies in patient care, assess whether a hospital employed qualified personnel, and grant compensation, even though allegations of medical negligence against individual doctors must be dealt with by the State Medical Council.
Case Details
- Case Title: Kousik Pal v. B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre & Ors.
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra
- Date of Judgment: December 19, 2025
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1487
Background of the dispute
The appeal arose from the death of the appellant’s mother, Arati Pal, who was admitted to B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre in May 2017.
After five days of hospitalization without improvement, she was advised to be transferred to another hospital.
Although the discharge summary described her condition as “stable,” she died roughly sixteen hours after being shifted.
Following her death, the appellant lodged a complaint before the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission alleging delay in diagnosis, improper treatment, and negligence by the hospital and its staff.
The Commission, after considering records and affidavits, found deficiencies in patient care and unethical trade practices, particularly noting that key diagnostic procedures had been carried out by persons whose qualifications were not recognized by the Medical Council authorities. On that basis, it awarded ₹20 lakh as compensation to the appellant.
Findings of the Commission
The Commission concluded that the discharge summary inaccurately described the patient as stable, a lapse which could not be dismissed as a mere clerical error.
It also found that the head of the non-invasive cardiology department did not possess a postgraduate qualification recognized by the Medical Council of India or the West Bengal Medical Council, yet was involved in interpreting critical cardiac investigations.
Similarly, an ECG technician was found to lack recognized qualifications and was officially designated only as a “female attendant.”
While the Commission refrained from recording a finding of medical negligence against individual doctors, acknowledging that such matters fell within the exclusive domain of the State Medical Council, it held the hospital responsible for deficiency in patient care and unethical trade practice, warranting compensation.
Proceedings before the High Court
A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court upheld the Commission’s order, observing that examining whether a hospital employed properly trained and qualified personnel squarely fell within the Commission’s statutory mandate.
The court noted that the Commission had confined itself to deficiencies in service and had consciously avoided adjudicating medical negligence.
However, a Division Bench later set aside both the Commission’s order and the Single Judge’s judgment.
It held that questions of qualifications and competence of doctors and technicians amounted to issues of professional misconduct or negligence, which only the State Medical Council could decide.
The Division Bench further observed that patient care and medical negligence were so closely interlinked that the Commission could not separate them, thereby ousting its jurisdiction.
Question before the Supreme Court
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission, constituted under the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017, had the authority to examine the qualifications of hospital staff, determine deficiency in patient care services, and award compensation, without encroaching upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Medical Council over medical negligence.
Supreme Court’s analysis
Interpreting the statutory scheme of the 2017 Act, the Court emphasized that its preamble and provisions were enacted in public interest to ensure regulation, transparency, and minimum standards of facilities and services in clinical establishments.
It held that “regulation” and “supervision” necessarily include ensuring that hospitals employ duly trained and qualified medical and paramedical personnel.
The Court noted that the Act expressly empowers the Commission to examine complaints relating to patient care services, unethical trade practices, and allied matters, and to award compensation in cases of injury or death.
While medical negligence complaints against individual professionals are reserved for State Medical Councils, the Commission is not barred from examining whether a hospital’s staffing and practices meet statutory standards.
Rejecting the High Court’s view, the Supreme Court observed that the Commission had not adjudicated medical negligence.
Instead, it had evaluated deficiencies in patient care by scrutinizing the credentials of those providing services, a function expressly authorized under the Act.
The Court held that accepting the Division Bench’s reasoning would render the Commission largely ineffective and defeat legislative intent.
The Court further underscored that the minimum qualification required for clinical interpretation of echocardiographic data had not been met in the present case, as reflected in communications from the Medical Council authorities.
Ensuring that only qualified personnel perform critical procedures was held to be integral to patient safety and accountability.
Final directions
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court restored the Commission’s order dated February 2, 2018, as affirmed by the Single Judge, and set aside the Division Bench judgment.
It directed the respondent hospital to pay the awarded compensation of ₹20 lakh to the appellant within eight weeks, along with interest at six percent from the date of the Commission’s award. No order as to costs was made, and pending applications were disposed of.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
Kousik Pal v. B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre & Ors.
