The Supreme Court held that proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act can continue against the legal heirs of a deceased doctor, but their liability is limited only to the estate inherited from the doctor.
Supreme Court Clarifies Liability Of Deceased Doctor’s Legal Heirs
The Supreme Court on Monday, May 4, held that when a doctor accused of medical negligence dies during the pendency of proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, his or her legal heirs may be substituted in the case.
However, the Court clarified that such legal heirs cannot be made personally liable. Their liability to satisfy any compensation is restricted to the extent of the estate inherited from the deceased doctor.
A Bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar approved the finding of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that legal heirs would be liable to satisfy the decretal amount only from the estate left behind by the deceased doctor, after conclusion of the proceedings.
The Bench observed:
“…in view of the preceding discussion and the statutory framework provided in 1986 Act as well as 2019 Act, we conclude that upon the death of the alleged medically negligent doctor, his/her legal heirs can be impleaded and brought on record.”
Court Disagrees With Earlier NCDRC View In Balbir Singh Makol
The Supreme Court disagreed with the law laid down by the NCDRC in Balbir Singh Makol Vs. Chairman, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Others, 2001 (1) CPR 45.
In that decision, the NCDRC had held that all claims would abate upon the death of a doctor, including claims relating to pecuniary loss caused to a patient by the doctor’s alleged negligent acts.
The Supreme Court held that claims for pecuniary loss survive even after the death of the doctor under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Such claims may be satisfied from the estate inherited by the doctor’s legal heirs, to the extent of their respective shares.
Also Read: State Must Be Model Employer: Supreme Court On ISRO Workers
Section 306 Of Indian Succession Act Explained
The Court referred to Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, which provides that all rights to prosecute any action or special proceeding existing in favour of a person at the time of death survive to his executors or administrators.
However, the provision carves out an exception for causes of action relating to personal injuries that do not cause the death of the party.
Background Of The Medical Negligence Dispute
The dispute arose from a medical negligence complaint filed before the consumer fora against a doctor.
The complaint alleged deficiency in medical services and sought compensation for harm caused to the patient.
The State Consumer Commission ruled in favour of the doctor. Aggrieved by that decision, the patient, who was the complainant, filed a revision petition before the NCDRC.
During the pendency of the revision proceedings, the doctor passed away.
Thereafter, an application was filed before the NCDRC seeking substitution of the doctor’s legal heirs, namely his wife and son, in place of the deceased doctor.
Legal Heirs Opposed Substitution
The legal heirs opposed their impleadment before the NCDRC.
They argued that a claim for medical negligence is a personal cause of action and therefore does not survive after the death of the doctor.
They also relied on the common law principle actio personalis moritur cum persona, which means that a personal action dies with the person.
The NCDRC, however, allowed the substitution of the legal heirs and held that the complaint could continue.
The legal heirs then approached the Supreme Court, raising the issue of whether such claims survive and whether they could be impleaded in pending proceedings.
Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Ruling
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the NCDRC’s order.
The judgment, authored by Justice JK Maheshwari, held that the legal heirs of a deceased doctor may be brought on record in pending proceedings.
At the same time, the Court clarified that their liability is strictly limited to the estate inherited from the deceased doctor. They cannot be held personally liable beyond the assets inherited from the deceased.
Consumer Fora Must First Determine Negligence
The Supreme Court held that consumer fora must first determine whether negligence is established against the deceased doctor.
Thereafter, the forum must distinguish between claims recoverable from the estate and personal claims that do not survive after death.
The Court observed:
“the Claimant has the duty to first establish the negligence of the deceased doctor and the claims on the estate recoverable as per Section 306 of the 1925 Act”
They further held that if estate-based claims are recoverable from the deceased doctor’s estate, then the court must examine only those claims that are maintainable against the estate.
The Court said:
“the Court has to only look at claims which are maintainable as against the estate, rather than adjudicating personal claims which have elapsed with the death of the doctor.”
Principles Laid Down By Supreme Court
The Supreme Court laid down the following principles:
i. The common law maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona has been statutorily modified in India through several laws, including the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, the Legal Representatives’ Suits Act, 1855, and the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
ii. The legal representative of a deceased person can institute a fresh suit or be sued afresh under the Legal Representatives’ Suits Act, 1855, or under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
iii. Continuation of a suit by or against the legal representative of a deceased person must be governed by Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which is substantive law.
iv. The procedural requirement under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to substitution of the legal representative of a deceased party, must be harmoniously construed with Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act.
v. The continuation of the “right to sue” under Order XXII Rule 2 read with Rule 4 CPC must be examined as on the date of death.
vi. Generally, all rights and liabilities to maintain a suit pass to the legal representative under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. However, while dealing with claims under the first exception to Section 306, personal injury claims abate, whereas claims for or against the estate of the deceased survive.
Case Details
Cause Title:
Kumud Lall VERSUS Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs and Others
With connected matter
