Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner has assailed an 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 mother of the fourth respondent was admitted in the Coronary Care Unit of the petitioner under Dr. Shuvo Dutta as the Primary Consultant with complaints of Chest Pain, Shortness of Breathing and fever for three days. The patient was treated at the establishment of the petitioner. On May 7, 2017, the patient was seen by a physician. At about 7.45 p.m. on May 7, 2017, the condition of the patient progressively deteriorated. She developed hypotension and was started inotropes and vasopressors for the same. She was attended by Dr. Shuvo Dutta, Primary Consultant at about 9.15 p.m. She was asked to be transferred to a multi speciality hospital. The fourth respondent and other relatives of the patient wasted about two hours time on May 7, 2017 to take a decision with regard to her transfer. The patient was subsequently discharged on May 8, 2017. She was admitted at C.M.R.I. for further management. The patient however succumbed to her illness on May 8, 2017 at about 6.15 p.m. The fourth respondent lodged a complaint on May 12, 2017 with the second respondent online. The complaint was against the petitioner and Dr. Shuvo Dutta. The petitioner submitted its response to such complaint on May 15, 2017. The second respondent required various documents from the petitioner which the petitioner supplied. The complaint was heard whereupon, the impugned decision was rendered.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the fourth respondent alleged deficiency in service and negligence in treatment. He has referred to the West Bengal Clinical Establishment (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017 and submitted that, deficiency in service is not defined in the Act of 2017. Moreover, Section 38 (iii) proviso specifies that complaint of medical negligence against medical professionals will be dealt with by the respective State Medical Councils. Therefore, according to him, the second respondent did not have jurisdiction to decide on the complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2.;