LI Network
Published on: 01 September 2023 at 18:59 IST
The Calcutta High Court has made a significant ruling in response to a Writ Petition Appeal, setting aside the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission’s (WBCERC) order.
The commission had directed the payment of Rs. 20 lakh in compensation for medical negligence in the treatment of Dr. Shraddha Bhutra, who tragically passed away after being denied timely medical care by multiple medical institutions. The court has instructed the WBCERC to re-examine the issue.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, the Single Judge Bench, pointed out that the WBCERC exhibited double standards by scrutinizing the treatment protocol only for the petitioner’s clinical establishment while overlooking the behavior of other clinical establishments. The court noted, “Hence, prima facie, it is arguable as to whether the BNWCCC was really the sole clinical establishment which was to take the entire blame for the sad demise of the patient.”
Case Background:
The deceased Dr. Shraddha Bhutra, under the care of Dr. Supriya Khetan, experienced mild chest pain on April 24, 2021. After consulting Dr. Khetan, who reassured her well-being, she later experienced severe lower abdominal pain.
Despite seeking help from Dr. Khetan, who recommended hospitalization, the patient allegedly declined medication or a visit. Subsequently, the patient was denied admission by Apollo Hospital due to its COVID-19 patient load.
She was then taken to Bhagirathi Neotia Woman & Child Care Centre (BNWCCC), where admission was denied despite contacting Dr. Khetan. The family then proceeded to Belle Vue Hospital, where admission was granted reluctantly under media attention and police involvement. Unfortunately, despite efforts by the attending medical staff at Belle Vue, the patient passed away.
The petitioner, Bhagirathi Neotia Woman & Child Care Centre (BNWCCC), argued that no complaints were filed against Apollo Hospital, even though the hospital neglected its duty as a clinical establishment.
The petitioner also pointed out that Belle Vue had received a clean chit despite a considerable delay in admission and the patient’s unfortunate demise.
On the other hand, the respondent argued that BNWCCC failed to provide immediate basic treatment to the patient, thereby violating the obligations of medical professionals.
High Court observation:
After considering the merits of the case, the High Court observed that the patient was initially taken to Apollo Hospital, which refused admission due to COVID-19 patient load concerns.
She was then denied admission at BNWCCC despite contacting Dr. Khetan. Finally, Belle Vue Hospital granted admission under pressure from media and police involvement but was unable to save the patient.
Considering the series of events, the High Court noted the absence of complaints against Apollo Hospital, despite it being the first clinical establishment to refuse admission. The key players in the incident were BNWCCC and Belle Vue.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the compensation order, ordering a re-adjudication and allowing parties to present further evidence for a fresh decision on the compensation to be awarded against BNWCCC or Belle Vue Clinic.