Safiya Malik

The Calcutta High Court has modified the order passed by a learned Single Judge concerning a complaint filed by Dr. Dipankar Chakrabarti against two hospitals under the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017. The Court held that while certain allegations raised in the complaint pertained to medical negligence, which falls under the jurisdiction of the West Bengal Medical Council, other allegations were within the purview of the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission (the "Commission"). The appellant has been permitted to file a fresh complaint before the Commission, restricted to the issues that fall within its jurisdiction.

The appeal arose from an order dated August 8, 2024, passed in WPA 18586 of 2024, in which the writ petition filed by Dr. Dipankar Chakrabarti was disposed of with liberty to approach the relevant authorities. The appellant’s daughter, aged 32, lost her life during the COVID-19 pandemic after being discharged from the emergency room of Charnock Hospital and subsequently passing away at Spandan Hospital.

The appellant filed a complaint before the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission under the 2017 Act, raising concerns about the treatment provided at these hospitals. The Commission, by an order dated December 23, 2022, stated that the complaint primarily questioned the treatment protocol, which was beyond its jurisdiction. However, after reviewing the hospital bill, the Commission found that Spandan Hospital had overcharged ₹17,438 and directed the hospital to refund the amount to the appellant.

At the appellant’s request, the Commission reconsidered the matter and, in an order dated January 30, 2023, permitted him to file a fresh complaint after the completion of proceedings before the Medical Council. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the appellant approached the Writ Court, seeking adjudication of his complaint. His petition included demands for action against the doctors and hospital management, cancellation of the hospitals’ licenses, compensation, and other ancillary reliefs.

The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, granting the appellant liberty to approach the competent authorities for relief. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed the present appeal.

Dr. Dipankar Chakrabarti, appearing in person, argued that several issues raised in his complaint fell within the jurisdiction of the Commission. He contended that the Commission failed to exercise its statutory powers under the 2017 Act. He further asserted that the Commission had the authority to examine whether the hospitals had complied with the conditions of registration and licensing under the Act.

The respondents, represented by learned counsel Mr. Atarup Banerjee, submitted that the primary allegation in the complaint was medical negligence, which fell under the jurisdiction of the West Bengal Medical Council. It was argued that the Commission was correct in directing the appellant to pursue remedies before the Medical Council.

The High Court examined the statutory framework governing the Commission’s powers under Section 38 of the 2017 Act. The Court observed: "Section 38 of the 2017 Act deals with the powers and functions of the Commission. Proviso to Clause (iii) of sub-section 1 of Section 38 states that any complaint of medical negligence against medical professionals will be dealt with by retrospective State Medical Councils."

The Court held that the learned Single Judge correctly directed the West Bengal Medical Council to decide issues related to medical negligence, treatment protocol, and procedural lapses by doctors. It was stated: "The learned Single Judge was right in directing the West Bengal Medical Council to decide the issue of medical negligence, deviation from usual treatment protocol, non-observance of certain formalities required by the doctors, etc., within a stipulated time limit after granting an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and the doctors."

However, the High Court found that certain allegations raised in the complaint fell within the jurisdiction of the Commission. These included allegations that the hospitals had not employed properly trained medical and paramedical personnel, which the Court held was a matter within the purview of the Commission. The Court stated: "This Court finds that the appellant has alleged that properly trained medical and paramedical personnel like doctors, etc., have not been employed by the clinical establishment. Such issue squarely falls within Section 38 of the 2017 Act."

The Court further observed that while some issues fell outside the jurisdiction of the Commission, there was no legal impediment preventing it from adjudicating matters that fell within its scope. It stated: "The Commission is empowered to decide some of the issues raised in the complaint which falls within its jurisdiction, irrespective of the fact that certain other issues fall within the domain of the West Bengal Medical Council."

The High Court modified the learned Single Judge’s order and permitted the appellant to file a fresh complaint before the Commission, limited to the issues that fell within its jurisdiction. The Court directed: "The appellant is permitted to file a complaint before the Commission raising only the issues which fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission along with a server copy of this order. If the complaint in the manner as directed hereinbefore is filed, the Commission shall dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order after making necessary enquiries and upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the clinical establishments or their authorized representatives, and any other person whose presence may be necessary for an effective adjudication of such issues that may be raised by the appellant."

The Commission has been directed to complete the adjudication process within ten weeks from the receipt of the complaint and to communicate its reasoned order to the parties immediately thereafter.

The Court declined to interfere with the liberty granted to the appellant to approach the relevant authorities but modified the impugned order to clarify that the appellant may pursue only those issues that fall within the Commission’s jurisdiction.

The appeal and the connected application were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The Court further directed that urgent certified copies of the judgment be supplied upon compliance with the necessary formalities.

Case Title: Dr. Dipankar Chakrabarti v. West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission & Ors.
Case Number: FMA 1262 of 2024 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2024
Bench: Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

[Read/Download order]