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 Allows Impleadment Of Legal Heirs
The Supreme Court on Monday, May 4, held that legal heirs of a doctor accused of medical negligence may be substituted in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act after the doctor’s death.
However, the Court clarified that the legal heirs cannot face personal liability.
Their liability to satisfy any compensation will extend only to the estate inherited from the deceased doctor.
A Bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar approved the view taken by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The NCDRC had held that legal heirs would have to satisfy the decretal amount only from the estate left behind by the deceased doctor, after the proceedings conclude.
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
The Supreme Court disagreed with the NCDRC’s earlier view in Balbir Singh Makol v. Chairman, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Others, 2001 (1) CPR 45.
In that case, the NCDRC had held that all claims abate after the death of a doctor. This included claims for pecuniary loss caused by the doctor’s alleged negligence.
The Supreme Court took a different view.
It held that claims for pecuniary loss survive even after the doctor’s death under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Therefore, such claims may be satisfied from the estate inherited by the legal heirs. The liability will remain limited to their respective shares in the estate.
Section 306 Of Indian Succession Act Explained
The Court referred to Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
This provision states that all rights to prosecute an action or special proceeding survive to the executors or administrators of a deceased person.
However, the provision creates an exception for certain personal injury claims.
As a result, personal claims that do not affect the estate may not survive after death. On the other hand, claims against the estate can continue.
Background Of The Medical Negligence Dispute
The dispute arose from a medical negligence complaint filed before the consumer fora.
The complainant 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 complainant approached the NCDRC through a revision petition.
During the pendency of the revision proceedings, the doctor died.
Thereafter, the complainant sought 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 medical negligence claim is a personal cause of action. Therefore, according to them, the claim could not survive after the doctor’s death.
They also relied on the common law principle actio personalis moritur cum persona, which means that a personal action dies with the person.
However, the NCDRC rejected their objection.
It allowed their substitution and held that the complaint could continue.
The legal heirs then approached the Supreme Court. They raised the issue of whether such claims survive after the death of the doctor.
Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Order
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the NCDRC’s order.
Justice JK Maheshwari authored the judgment.
The Court held that consumer fora may bring the legal heirs of a deceased doctor on record in pending proceedings.
At the same time, it made the limits of liability clear.
The legal heirs cannot be held personally liable. They can face liability only to the extent of assets inherited from the deceased doctor.
Consumer Fora Must First Determine Negligence
The Supreme Court held that consumer fora must first determine whether the deceased doctor committed negligence.
After that, the forum must separate two categories of claims.
First, it must identify claims recoverable from the estate. Second, it must exclude purely 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”
The Court further stated:
“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:
- The common law maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona has undergone statutory modification in India. Laws such as the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, the Legal Representatives’ Suits Act, 1855, and the Indian Succession Act, 1925 have changed its scope.
- A legal representative of a deceased person can institute a fresh suit or face a fresh suit under the Legal Representatives’ Suits Act, 1855, or Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
- Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 governs the continuation of a suit by or against the legal representative of a deceased person. It operates as substantive law.
- Courts must read Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with substitution of legal representatives, harmoniously with Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act.
- The right to sue under Order XXII Rule 2 read with Rule 4 CPC must be examined as on the date of death.
- In general, rights and liabilities to maintain a suit pass to the legal representative under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. However, in cases involving personal injury claims under the first exception to Section 306, personal claims abate. Claims for or against the estate survive.
Case Details
Cause Title:
Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs and Others
With connected matter
Bench:
Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Raghenth Basant, Sr. Adv. (AC); Mr. Akshay Sahay, AOR; Ms. Bagavathy Vennimalai, Adv.; Ms. Kaushitak Sharma, Adv.; Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, Adv.; Ms. Sarvshree, AOR; Ms. Somyashree, Adv.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Umesh Sinha, Adv.; Mr. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, AOR; Ms. Shefali, Adv.; Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Adv.; Ms. Himani Chhabra, Adv.; Ms. Devyani Mahra, Adv.; Mr. Shyam Padman, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Jaimon Andrews, Adv.; Ms. Piyo Harold Jaimon, Adv.; Ms. Asitwathi Shyam, Adv.; Ms. Firdousecp, Adv.; Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR; Petitioner-in-person, AOR.
