The Supreme Court of India has held that the legal heirs of a doctor accused of medical negligence can be impleaded in consumer proceedings following the doctor’s death. The Court clarified that while personal injury claims abate upon death under the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona, claims involving the pecuniary interest or loss to the estate of the deceased survive and can be pursued against the legal representatives.
A Division Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the judgment in a set of appeals challenging orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The NCDRC had allowed the substitution of a deceased doctor’s legal heirs during a pending revision petition.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a consumer complaint filed in 1997 against Dr. P.B. Lall. The complainant alleged that his wife lost vision in her right eye due to a “wrong treatment and operation” performed by Dr. Lall in February 1990. The District Forum at Munger, Bihar, partially allowed the complaint in 2003, holding the doctor liable for deficiency in service and awarding ₹2,60,000 in compensation.
However, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Patna, reversed this decision in 2005, dismissing the complaint on the grounds that loss of vision was due to glaucoma and that no expert medical evidence was produced to prove negligence. The complainant then preferred a Revision Petition before the NCDRC.
During the pendency of the revision, Dr. Lall passed away on August 4, 2009. The NCDRC allowed an application to substitute his legal heirs (wife and son). The heirs challenged this substitution, arguing that since no decree existed against the doctor on the date of his death (as the SCDRC had already dismissed the claim), the proceedings stood abated.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellants (legal heirs of Dr. Lall) contended that under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, causes of action for “personal injuries not causing the death of the party” do not survive. They argued that because the claim was for personal injury due to alleged medical negligence and no formal decree existed at the time of death, the right to sue did not survive against the heirs.
The respondents (legal heirs of the complainant) argued that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), specifically Order XXII Rule 4, are applicable to the Consumer Protection Act. They submitted that since the legal heirs inherited the doctor’s estate, any liability fixed for negligence should be recoverable from that estate.
The Court also heard from Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant, who suggested that “loss to the estate” constitutes a distinct head of claim representing compensatory civil liability, which should survive even on a strict construction of Section 306.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the intersection of the common law maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona (“a personal action dies with the person”) and Indian statutory modifications.
The Bench observed that the maxim has been statutorily modified in India by various enactments, including the Legal Representatives’ Suits Act, 1855, and Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Court drew a sharp distinction between “proprietary rights” (related to a person’s estate) and “personal rights” (related to status or personal condition).
The Court noted:
“Generally, all rights and liabilities to maintain a suit are carried to the legal representative under Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. However, when adjudicating claims under 1st exception to Section 306… personal injury claims abate, while claims for or against the estate of the deceased survive.”
Regarding medical negligence, the Court observed:
“In light of the law discussed above, we do not subscribe to the ratio of NCDRC in Balbir Singh Makol Case… Five judge bench of NCDRC therein seem to have erred on… [applying] common law maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona, by failing to read the statutory modification which are carried out by various enactments in India.”
The Court clarified that the ‘right to sue’ under Order XXII of the CPC must be determined based on substantive law. It held that while purely personal claims for “pain and suffering” might lapse, any claim affecting the pecuniary interest of the estate continues.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court concluded that upon the death of an alleged medically negligent doctor, their legal heirs can be impleaded. However, the extent of their liability is limited to the estate left behind by the deceased.
The Bench set aside the NCDRC’s previous orders and remitted the matter back to the Commission for fresh adjudication within six months. The NCDRC has been directed to first establish whether the deceased doctor was negligent and then determine which claims are maintainable against the estate as per Section 306 of the 1925 Act.
The Court cautioned:
“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.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Kumud Lall vs. Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs and Others
- Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 33646-33647 of 2018)
- Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
- Date: May 04, 2026
