Supreme Court holds medical negligence claim against deceased doctor can continue against legal heirs only to the extent of the estate.
Case Name: Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs and Others with Amit Kumar v. Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs and Others
Citation: 2026 INSC 443
Date of Judgment/Order: 4 May 2026
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Held: The Supreme Court held that in a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence, the death of the accused doctor during the pendency of appellate or revisional proceedings does not automatically terminate the proceedings. The doctor’s legal heirs may be impleaded, but their liability cannot be personal and can extend only to claims legally recoverable from the estate left behind by the deceased doctor. The Court clarified that Order XXII CPC, as applied through Section 13(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is procedural and must operate harmoniously with Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Therefore, purely personal injury claims may abate, but claims against or affecting the estate may survive and must be examined on pleadings and proof.
Summary: The original complainant filed a consumer complaint in 1997 alleging that his wife lost vision in her right eye due to negligent eye surgery performed by Dr. P.B. Lall in 1990. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and awarded compensation, but the State Commission allowed the doctor’s appeal and dismissed the complaint, holding that there was no expert evidence proving medical negligence and that the loss of vision was attributable to glaucoma. During the complainant’s revision before the NCDRC, Dr. Lall died, and the complainant sought substitution of the doctor’s wife and son as legal heirs. The NCDRC allowed substitution and later held that the legal heirs could be liable to satisfy any decretal amount to the extent of the estate inherited. The legal heirs challenged those orders before the Supreme Court, arguing that the claim was personal and had abated under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act. The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona, the Legal Representatives’ Suits Act, 1855, Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, Order XXII CPC, and the Consumer Protection Act framework, and held that survivability depends on whether the claim is personal or estate-related.
Decision: The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by setting aside the NCDRC’s orders dated 26 May 2010 and 24 May 2018, and restored the revision petition to its original number. The matter was remitted to the NCDRC for fresh adjudication within six months, with a direction to first determine negligence, if any, and then decide which claims, if any, survive against the estate of the deceased doctor under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Court clarified that the legal heirs can be brought on record, but the NCDRC must not mechanically treat every claim as recoverable from the estate; it must distinguish between claims that abate as personal claims and claims maintainable against the estate. Pending applications were disposed of.