ASHOK KUMAR GIRI Vs. KOUSHIK PAL
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ashok Kumar Giri
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner has filed the present revisional application, assailing the order dated February 2, 2018 passed by the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner was working as a doctor with B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as the Clinical Establishment). In a complaint against such Clinical Establishment, the Commission considered the issue as to whether, the petitioner was entitled to perform Echocardiogram and opine thereon, and proceeded to find the petitioner was not entitled to do so. According to him, the Commission acted in excess of jurisdiction in arriving at the findings recorded in respect of the working of the petitioner at the Clinical Establishment. The Commission acted in excess of jurisdiction in commenting upon and arriving at the finding that, the petitioner was not authorised to undertake Echocardiogram. He has relied upon Section 38 of the West Bengal Clinical Establishment (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017 in support of his contentions. According to him, the Commission could not have decided on medical negligence in view of Section 38 of the Act of 2017. The entire grievance of the complaint of the Opposite Party No. 1 before the Commission was medical negligence. He has submitted that, the Commission travelled beyond its jurisdiction. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the Judgment and Order dated August 25, 2019 rendered in C.O. No. 7236 (W) of 1988 (Manabendra Kumar Choudhury v. First Labour Court and Ors.).
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner was an M.B.B.S. doctor and was entitled to conduct Echocardiogram and treat the patient. The petitioner is entitled to perform Echocardiogram being a doctor. The Commission acted with material irregularity in holding that, the petitioner did not have a right to treat the patient and did not have the educational qualification to interpret the outcome of the Echocardiography conducted by him. Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that, the interpretation of the petitioner was wrong or that such interpretation harmed the patient in any manner.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.