The legal heirs of the alleged medically negligent doctor (deceased now) challenged to the order Dated 26.05.2010 in M.A. No. 1214 of 2009 (Application for substitution) in Revision Petition No. 432 of 2006 passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission which allowed the application filed by the complainant seeking substitution of the legal heirs of the doctor, pending revision and directing them to be brought on record
The Supreme Court on 4th May,2016 held “that upon the death of a doctor, his or her legal heirs can be substituted in the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, but their liability for compensation arising from the doctor’s alleged negligence is limited to the extent of the estate inherited from the deceased”.
Case Title: Kumud Lall v/s Suresh Chandra Roy (died)through LRs &others with civil appeal No 33648-33649 of 2018 Amit Kumr V/S Suresh Chandra Roy.
Decided on 04.05.2026
facts of the case
- The complainant consulted Dr. P.B. Lall (deceased) at his private clinic on 10.02.1990 upon severe pain by his wife in her right eye advised immediate operation, which was done on 11.02.1990. However, the pain reoccurred on 16.03.1990 and she was taken back to Dr. Lall. Despite further treatment, there was no relief.
- The complainant consulted with other doctors at Bhagalpur and Aligarh and also Dr. B. Sridhar at Shankar Netralaya, Madras. As alleged, he informed that his wife had already lost vision of right eye due to wrong treatment and operation, which can further affect the vision in her left eye. On advice of surgery of his wife’s left eye, she was operated on 05.05.1994. the treatment of his wife with local doctor continued till 05.08.1997.The consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed on 13.08.1997 against Dr. Lall for alleged deficiency in service, claiming compensation
Order by Consumer Forum Munger Bihar
The District Forum, Munger, Bihar vide order dated 05.11.2003 partly allowed the complaint holding the doctor negligent for deficiency in service and held him liable to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss of vision. In addition, Rs. 35,000/- for expenditure and treatment, and Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony, making total Rs. 2,60,000/- be paid within 3 months.
Order by State commission
Being aggrieved, Dr. Lall both approached State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna, Bihar filing Appeal Nos. 598 of 2003 and 607 of 2003 respectively. Both the appeals were decided vide common order on 02.12.2005, and the appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed, while the appeal of Dr. Lall was allowed, setting aside the order of District Forum.
The SCDRC noted that the loss of vision of the wife of complainant was due to glaucoma and not curable even after the surgery. The surgery performed was acceptable under the medical ethics and with the best of the abilities by Dr. Lall. The complainant has not produced any report from any expert of medical board or any expert to show that in doing surgery Dr. Lall was negligent. In absence of expert evidence to substantiate the allegation of medical negligence leading to loss of vision, holding the doctor guilty for the same is not sustainable
Order By NCDRC
Dissatisfied, the complainant preferred Revision Petition No. 432 of 2006 before NCDRC assailing the order of SCDRC, pending which, Dr. Lall passed away on 04.08.2009. The complainant filed M.A. No. 1214 of 2009 for substitution of legal heirs (wife and son) in the revision petition, which was allowed by NCDRC on 26.05.2010 substituting the appellants herein as legal heirs
On notice, both wife and son filed application praying to drop their names from the proceedings. It was said, since Dr. Lall had succeeded in the appeal before SCDRC, and died during the pendency of the revision, no subsisting decree existed on the date of his death, hence, the proceedings would stand abated.
NCDRC vide order dated 24.05.2018 dismissed both the applications and posted the matter for final hearing on 20.09.2018.
Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeals have been filed wherein after issuing notice, stay on further proceeding was granted on 18.12.2019.
Observation and order by SC
Arguments submitted from legal heirs of doctor
- the complaint was dismissed by SCDRC and during pendency of revision Dr. Lall passed away. Therefore, on the date of death of Dr. Lall, no formal decree of any forum/Commission existed against him. In such eventuality, the proceedings ought to have been closed as abated, and for alleged negligence of deceased, no right to sue survive against the legal representatives
- No proceedings can continue against the legal heirs of the doctors in view of Section 306 10 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
- It is also urged, in the 1986 Act, opposite party has not been defined and in case of death of opposite party rendered service in person, his/her legal heirs cannot be substituted for any negligent act of individual Doctor.
- reliance has been placed on Balbir Singh Makol Vs. Chairman, M/s Gangaram Hospital and Others 2001 Before the case could reach its culmination the said Doctor, i.e. Dr. Makahni, died. Thus, the allegations could neither be rebutted nor could he have an opportunity to defend himself. In a tort of medical negligence, the cause of action is personal against the person who has been negligent in discharging his duties and that the cause of action does not survive against his estate or the Legal 38 2001 (1) CPR 45 57 Representatives.
- Jayaprakash Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. AIR 1977 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “The death of the doctor extinguished his liability for damages and the suit against him stood abated. The maxim, “actio personalis meritur cum persona” applied to the case. The maxim means that personal right of action dies with the person in other words death destroys the right of action. The right to sue will be extinguished.
Factual position in the present case
The complainant had succeeded before the District Forum and was awarded compensation. However, when taken in appeal by doctor, the SCDRC allowed the same and set-aside the award. Aggrieved, the original complainant preferred revision before NCDRC, pending which, the doctor/opposite party passed away on 04.08.2009.This situation led to application by complaint to substitute and bring legal heirs of doctors on record. Other application by legal heirs of doctors to dismiss application .
Legl Question Before SC
The question that arises for our consideration is – “Whether, upon death of the doctor during pendency of proceedings at appellate stage, the legal heirs can be impleaded and held liable for the alleged act of medical negligence of the deceased doctor? If yes, to what extent?”
SC HELD -District court had passed the order in favour of complainant; State Commission had set side District court order but National commission has yet to give its finding on merit
The Supreme Court on 4th May,2016 held “that upon the death of a doctor, his or her legal heirs can be substituted in the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, but their liability for compensation arising from the doctor’s alleged negligence is limited to the extent of the estate inherited from the deceased”.
SC found Balbir Singh Makol& G. Jayaprakash Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. AIR 1977 not matching to the present facts
Case Sent back to NC with direction to establish the claims stating the NCDRC is duty bound to adjudicate the negligence aspect, if any by the deceased doctor and resultantly adjudicate the surviving claims.
Dr Prem Lata
