The Supreme Court has held that when a doctor facing allegations of medical negligence dies during the pendency of proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, the legal heirs of the deceased can be substituted and brought on record.
The Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, however, clarified on Monday that such representatives incur only a limited, estate-bound liability, restricted to the value of assets devolved upon them, and could not be subjected to personal pecuniary liability beyond the inherited estate.
Affirming the view taken by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), the Court held that impleadment of legal heirs in pending consumer proceedings was legally tenable within the statutory framework of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It underscored that while the cause of action did not extinguish in entirety, enforcement of any decretal liability must be confined to the estate of the deceased.
Departing from the earlier position adopted in Balbir Singh Makol v. Chairman, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, the Court rejected the proposition that all claims in medical negligence abate upon the death of the doctor. It held that claims involving pecuniary loss or financial injury survive and remain actionable, in terms of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Under this provision, rights to prosecute or defend legal proceedings subsist in favour of or against executors or administrators, except in cases involving purely personal causes of action that do not impact the estate.
The dispute originated from a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in medical services. Although the State Commission had ruled in favour of the doctor, the complainant invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the NCDRC. During the pendency of such proceedings, the doctor died, prompting an application for substitution of his legal heirs.
The heirs resisted impleadment, invoking the common law maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona, contending that the cause of action was personal and stood extinguished upon death. The NCDRC rejected this objection and permitted substitution, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. Upholding the Commission’s approach, the Bench held that Indian statutory law has diluted the rigidity of the common law rule through legislative interventions, including the Legal Representatives’ Suits Act, 1855 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
The Court further held that adjudication in such matters must follow a two-stage analysis. First, the consumer fora must determine the existence of medical negligence based on evidentiary standards and expert opinion. Upon such determination, the fora must segregate claims that survive against the estate from those that are purely personal and consequently abate. Only those claims referable to the estate can be enforced against the legal representatives, strictly to the extent of assets inherited.
It was also clarified that procedural provisions governing substitution, particularly under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, must be harmonised with the substantive mandate of Section 306 of the 1925 Act. The survivability of the right to sue was to be assessed as on the date of death of the original party, and continuation of proceedings was permissible only in respect of claims that retained their legal character as enforceable against the estate.
The Apex Court declined to interfere with the NCDRC’s order, directing that the proceedings continue for the determination of negligence and quantification of compensable loss, if any, recoverable from the estate of the deceased doctor.
The post Supreme Court allows proceedings against legal heirs of deceased doctor under Consumer Protection Act appeared first on India Legal.