Bardhaman Commission Orders Hospital to Produce Nurses’ Records
Bardhaman Consumer Commission directs hospital administrator to appear with nurses’ registration records in vision loss case involving two premature infants.
Bardhaman Consumer Commission Seeks Nurses’ Records
The Bardhaman District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed the Medical Administrator of Sharanya Multispeciality Hospital in West Bengal to appear before it with documents relating to the registration certificates of the nurses employed at the facility. The order was passed in connection with two complaints filed by Manoj Kumar Ghosh and Hitesh Choudhary.
In their petitions before the Commission, the parents have alleged that their children suffered vision impairment following birth due to negligence on the part of the hospital. Among their claims is a serious allegation that the members of the hospital’s nursing staff at the time of the birth of the children were not registered with the West Bengal Nursing Council.
Support Independent Journalism. Public interest stories that affect ordinary citizens — especially those without power or voice — requires time, resources, and independence. Your support — even a modest contribution — allows us to uncover stories that would otherwise remain hidden. Support The Probe by contributing to projects that resonate with you (Click Here), or Become a Member of The Probe to stand with us (Click Here). |
Also Read: Medical Negligence Alleged: Vision Loss in Two Babies
On 9 February 2026, when the matter came up before the Bardhaman consumer commission, the hospital did not submit the required registration certificates of its nursing staff. Instead, counsel for Sharanya Multispeciality Hospital filed a petition seeking additional time to furnish the documents. The Commission rejected that request and directed the Medical Administrator to personally appear on 13 April 2026 with the required records.
For observers of the case, this development marks an important moment. Over the past year and a half, The Probe has reported extensively on the Bardhaman case involving the two children, Mivaan and Adrita. The Commission’s insistence on documentary compliance suggests that the matter has entered a more exacting phase of scrutiny.
Bardhaman Medical Negligence Case: From NICU Lapses to Medical Council Inquiry
In October 2024, The Probe first reported on the Bardhaman case involving Manoj Ghosh’s daughter Adrita and Hitesh Choudhary’s son Mivaan. Both children were born prematurely at Sharanya Multispeciality Hospital in Bardhaman, West Bengal, in 2023. Because of their premature birth, they were admitted to the hospital’s Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), a specialised facility designed to provide continuous monitoring and advanced medical support to critically ill or preterm newborns.
According to the parents, the infants remained in the NICU for extended periods—43 days in one case and 48 days in the other. However, they allege that during this time the hospital failed to conduct a critical screening for Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP), a potentially blinding eye disorder that primarily affects premature infants.
Medical guidelines in India, including those endorsed by national neonatal and ophthalmology bodies, recommend that preterm infants meeting specific criteria undergo ROP screening within four weeks of birth. The screening is particularly advised for infants with a birth weight below 1500 grams or a gestational age under 32 weeks.
Also Read: Medical Negligence: Who Killed Simran?
Hitesh Choudhary has alleged that despite his son Mivaan’s prolonged 43-day stay in the Bardhaman hospital, no ROP screening was conducted. He further claims that upon discharge, the family was advised to wait another 15 days before seeking the test elsewhere. Manoj Ghosh has made a similar allegation regarding his daughter Adrita, who remained in the hospital for 48 days but did not undergo ROP screening during that period. According to him, he too was advised to wait an additional 15 days before pursuing the test at another facility. The parents argue that these delays proved consequential.
A subsequent report by the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) in West Bengal lent significant weight to the parents’ claims. The report stated that the suffering of the children resulted from the hospital’s failure to conduct an ROP screening. It noted that, as per standard medical practice, ROP screening should be performed within four weeks of delivery for infants below 1500 grams or under 32 weeks’ gestation.
In 2024, when The Probe reached out to the hospital seeking clarification, Dr. Soumendra Saha Sikdar, the Proprietor of Sharanya Multispeciality Hospital, acknowledged that ROP screening had not been conducted at the time due to a lack of necessary facilities. The admission was notable. It raised questions about whether a hospital providing NICU services in Bardhaman should have either ensured in-house screening capability or arranged timely referral to a centre equipped to perform the procedure. In neonatal care, where timelines are clinically significant, the absence of screening infrastructure can have irreversible consequences.
The case did not remain confined to the consumer forum. In April 2025, The Probe reported that the West Bengal Medical Council (WBMC) had sought a report from Sharanya Multispeciality Hospital in connection with allegations of medical negligence leading to vision loss in the two infants.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Flags Regulatory Failures at Saroj Hospital
The Council requested an explanation from the hospital regarding the parents’ allegations. It also sought a report from Bardhaman Medical College and Hospital, asking it to provide its comments on the matter. According to Hitesh Choudhary, it was doctors at Bardhaman Medical College who first informed him that his son’s case indicated lapses in treatment at the private facility.
In July 2025, The Probe reported further developments. The WBMC formally initiated an inquiry into the allegations of negligence at the Bardhaman hospital. The Council requested a detailed explanation from the institution concerning the failure to conduct timely ROP screenings and other alleged lapses in neonatal care. In a subsequent move, the Council summoned four doctors associated with the hospital—Dr. Balaram Ghosh, Dr. Mir Tahmid Zaman, Dr. Nibedita Samanta and Dr. SK Sahabuddin—to appear before its Penal and Ethical Cases Committee.
In August 2025, The Probe reported on a meeting held on 30 July 2025 at the West Bengal Medical Council in relation to the Bardhaman case. During the hearing, the parents of Mivaan and Adrita were asked to submit detailed written complaints outlining their allegations against each of the four doctors and the hospital. The doctors appeared before the Council’s Penal and Ethical Cases Committee, and their statements were recorded.
Against this backdrop, the latest direction of the Bardhaman District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission requiring the hospital’s Medical Administrator to personally produce nurses’ registration certificates assumes significance. The regulatory status of nursing staff is not a procedural technicality; it speaks to institutional compliance and patient safety. If nurses were indeed unregistered at the time of the children’s births, it would raise additional concerns about oversight within the hospital.
Mivaan and Adrita, today, continue to live with vision impairment. The proceedings in Bardhaman before the Consumer Commission and the West Bengal Medical Council are ongoing. The outcome will depend on how the institutions involved examine the records, assess responsibility and apply the law. For the two families, the focus remains unchanged: clarity on what happened and accountability where it is due.
