Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case

“Cal. High Court Sets Aside WBCERC Award, Observes ‘Double Standards’ in Medical Negligence Case”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the High Court at Calcutta has set aside an award by the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission (WBCERC) that directed Park Hospitals to pay Rs. 20 lakh for alleged medical negligence. The case revolved around the unfortunate demise of Dr. Shraddha Bhutra, who was pregnant and under the care of Dr. Supriya Khetan.

The High Court observed that the Commission applied “double standards” in its judgment. “The Commission ought to have adverted to the aforesaid factors and yardsticks while deciding the issue of compensation,” the Court noted in Para 37 of the judgment.

The Court pointed out that Park Hospitals was not solely to blame for the tragic incident. “It is clear that Belle Vue kept the patient waiting for at least 35 minutes at a crucial juncture, immediately after which the patient met her demise,” the Court stated in Para 33.

The matter has been remanded for re-adjudication. “The matter is remanded to the respondent no.1-Commission for a re-adjudication, upon giving opportunity to the parties to produce further evidence,” the Court directed in Para 38.

The Court also highlighted the roles of other hospitals, including Apollo and Belle Vue, stating that they too played roles in the unfortunate series of events. “The Commission did not properly assess the roles of all involved Clinical Establishments,” the Court observed in Para 29.

The Commission has been directed to complete the re-adjudication as soon as possible, “preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order to the Commission,” as per Para 38 of the judgment.

This ruling is expected to have significant implications for medical negligence cases, particularly those involving multiple clinical establishments.

D.D-30.Aug.2023

Park Hospitals and another vs The West Bengal Clinical Establishment  Regulatory Commission and another

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Park_Hospital_Vs_WB_30Aug23_CalHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News