A packed courtroom on Thursday saw the Supreme Court step into an emotionally charged dispute involving the death of a patient, hospital accountability, and the powers of a state health regulator. At the centre of the case was Kousik Pal, who lost his mother after treatment at B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre in Kolkata. The Court was asked a simple but sensitive question - who decides when patient care goes wrong?
Background
Kousik Pal’s mother, Arati Pal, was admitted to the Birla hospital in May 2017. After five days of treatment without improvement, doctors decided to shift her to another facility. Her discharge papers described her condition as “stable”. She was moved in the early hours of the next day and passed away within 16 hours.
Read also:- Supreme Court settles long-running tax dispute on non-compete fees, clarifies capital natur
Pal approached the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission, alleging delayed diagnosis, improper treatment, and misleading communication. The Commission agreed with him and awarded ₹20 lakh as compensation, holding that key procedures like echocardiography were done by persons not properly qualified.
The hospital challenged this before the Calcutta High Court. While a Single Judge upheld the Commission’s decision, a Division Bench later set it aside, ruling that issues of medical qualification and negligence should be left entirely to the State Medical Council.
That reversal brought the matter to the Supreme Court Supreme Court of India.
Read also:- Supreme Court steps in on Rajasthan village naming row, restores single judge order quashing Amargarh and Sagatsar notifications over policy
Court’s Observations
Hearing the appeal, a Bench led by Justice Sanjay Karol took a close look at the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act. The judges were clear that the Commission’s role cannot be reduced to a token presence.
“The Commission exists to ensure minimum standards of patient care,” the bench observed, noting that supervision naturally includes checking whether hospitals employ properly trained doctors and technicians.
The Court rejected the High Court’s view that patient care issues and medical negligence are inseparable. According to the judges, the Commission had consciously avoided ruling on medical negligence and had confined itself to deficiencies in service, such as engaging unqualified personnel and issuing a misleading discharge summary.
On the discharge note calling the patient “stable”, the Court was blunt. A casual explanation that it was an error, the bench said, cannot wash away responsibility, especially when family members rely on such information to take life-altering decisions.
The judges also noted official communication from the Medical Council stating that the diploma held by the concerned doctor was not recognised, strengthening the Commission’s findings.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad High Court’s Arrest Shield, Says No Blanket Protection While Probe Continues in Arms Licence Forgery Case
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court restored the Commission’s 2018 order and the Single Judge’s ruling. The Division Bench judgment of the High Court was set aside.
The hospital has been directed to pay ₹20 lakh in compensation to Kousik Pal within eight weeks, along with 6% interest from the date of the original award. The Court clarified that this does not prevent the State Medical Council from separately examining allegations of medical negligence.
Case Title: Kousik Pal v. B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 8365 of 2024 (2025 INSC 1487)
Case Type: Civil Appeal (Medical Negligence / Patient Care Compensation)
Decision Date: December 19, 2025
