Constitutional validity of clinical establishment regulation upheld as reasonable public-health control, with the writ challenge found maintainable.

A writ challenge to the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017 was held maintainable because the pleadings assailed the impugned provisions, disclosed a constitutional cause of action, and imperfect drafting of prayers did not prevent the Court from moulding relief. The provisions were then upheld as valid regulatory measures: the Court accepted the classification between different kinds of clinical establishments, including single-doctor consultation clinics where treatment is rendered, and held that requirements on emergency care, billing, grievance redressal, records, transparency, and compensation were reasonable public-interest regulation. No repugnancy, manifest arbitrariness, or unconstitutional interference with the right to practise was found.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable; (ii) Whether the challenged provisions of the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017 were ultra vires the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable.

Analysis: The challenge to maintainability on the ground of imperfect drafting of prayers did not succeed because the body of the petition contained pleadings assailing the impugned provisions, and the Court could mould relief without travelling beyond the pleadings. The petition also disclosed a cause of action, since the petitioners complained that their fundamental rights as medical practitioners were affected by the statutory scheme, and a plea of constitutional invalidity does not fail merely because the petitioners were not yet registered under the Act.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenged provisions of the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017 were ultra vires the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Act was enacted to regulate clinical establishments in the public interest, ensure minimum standards of patient care, and address lack of transparency in private health care. The distinction between a medical clinic and a medical consultation clinic, and the inclusion of a single-doctor establishment when consultation turns into treatment, was held to be a permissible regulatory classification. The statutory obligations regarding emergency care, fair billing, grievance redressal, records, transparency, and compensation did not abrogate the right to practise the profession, but imposed reasonable regulation in aid of public welfare. The Court found no repugnancy with the Medical Council of India regulations, no unconstitutional interference with professional discretion, and no manifest arbitrariness or impermissible discrimination. The State Legislature had competence under the public health field in List II, and the consumer-law regime did not exclude parallel regulation under the impugned Act.

Conclusion: The challenged provisions were not ultra vires the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The statutory challenge failed in all material respects, and the regulatory scheme governing clinical establishments was upheld as a valid exercise of legislative power in the interest of public health and patient welfare.

---