The Supreme Court held that the benchmark for adjudging medical negligence is the lowest standard of professional skill and competence expected of a medical practitioner. It clarified that “deficiency in service” in patient care is distinct from “medical negligence” and that the two concepts must not be enmeshed.
The case involved an appellant who alleged negligence and deficiency in diagnosis at the respondent hospital. The West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission awarded ₹20 lakh in compensation, noting that an unqualified doctor had performed critical procedures. While a Single Judge upheld this, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court reversed the decision, holding that negligence and deficiency are intertwined and require a specialised body for assessment.
The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s ruling, confirming that the doctor lacked minimum qualifications. The Court held that the Commission acted within its authority under Section 38 of the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017 by focusing on deficiencies in patient care. It held that under Sections 29 and 33 of the Act, hospitals are liable to pay compensation where their actions cause imminent danger, injury or death.
Kousik Pal v B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre
19 December 2025
Citations: 2025 INSC 1487 | 2025 SCO.LR 12(5)[24]
Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra
Case Comment
The crux of the dispute arises from the High Court’s finding that (a) the Commission could not have returned a finding on the qualification or lack thereof on part of Dr. Ashok Giri and Ms. Chaitali Kundu; (b) that ‘patient care’ and ‘medical negligence’ are so inextricably linked that the Commission could not have returned a finding on this issue. Held, the Commission was well within its jurisdiction in giving the findings that were challenged in the writ appeal before the High Court. The High Court gave too wide a berth to the State Medical Council leaving almost no room for the Commission to function.
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://legal.relegal.in/subscribe-newsletter/
#legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice #deficiencyinservice #medicalnegligence #statemedicalcouncil
Key words/phrases: Deficiency in Service—West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission—Section 36 of West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017—Section 29—major deficiency in service—Section 33—causing injury or death to the service recipient—Medical Negligence—State Medical Council
Read the Judgement here.