Consumer Protection Act | Can Legal Heirs Be Held Liable After Death Of Person Found Negligent? Supreme Court Reserves Verdict
The Supreme Court on February 3 reserved for judgment the issue of whether, for the negligence by a person, the estate of such person should be held liable for compensation through legal heirs.
It said that the Court will deal with the limited issue of whether the cause of action against the legal heirs survives or not, and not whether they would be entitled to compensation. It may be noted that Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant was appointed as the amicus curiae to address this issue.
A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar was hearing a special leave petition filed by a consumer, who alleged negligence by the doctor under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. His complaint was allowed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum but was set aside by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. When he approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(NCDRC), the doctor died. Subsequently, the consumer also died.
The consumer's legal heirs approached the Supreme Court, and the bench stayed the proceedings before the NCDRC. On January 13, when the matter was taken up, the bench addressed the issue of whether, under the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complaint survives and whether compensation can be provided to the consumer through the legal heirs of the doctor. Observing that the issue has wide ramifications, the Court decided to appoint an amicus in this case.
Basant submitted that in a case of consumer complaint of medical negligence, when a doctor dies, the cause of action, that is the right to sue, survives against the legal heirs of the doctor. But what compensation the person is entitled to is to be decided by the commission.
"Whether it is a painter, whether it is a doctor, now they are not filing a suit. This act is a service availed. So, whether professional doctor conducting an operation or a professional painter, hiring a builder, this Act [Consumer Protection Act] treats them all as service availed," Basant said.
Reference was also made to Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which says that all demands and rights to prosecute or defend actions survive the deceased. But exception includes personal injuries not causinf death, or cases where relief becomes impossible or nugatory after death.
Prima facie, Justice Maheshwari said that the issue pertains not to whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation through legal heirs but whether legal heirs can be made a party. He also said that in this case, Section 306 may not apply.
"Primarily, it appears that they may be joined as a party but on merit part, it may be looked into a [different] perspective...if we go to that extent [of going into merits], we have to deal with the entire act and evidence. It has come to the limited issue of whether they [legal heirs] can be joint as a party or not. We have to decide this much only," Justice Maheshwari said.
The Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Sarvshree, also made arguments. She submitted that a decree was passed by the district forum holding the doctor negligent. There was an appeal preferred by both parties, but the State Commission allowed the appeal of the doctor, setting aside the District Commission's order. It was observed in detail that there was no medical negligence and therefore, the cause of the issue does not survive.
She also submitted that Section 306 will apply to this case as medical negligence is an act of personal injury. It dies with the person who has caused that act.
She said: "The LRs today are substituted. This is a professional act of deficiency in service. Suppose, a person suffers an injury in the foot, goes for a surgery. The doctor performs the surgery, and it is successful, but four-five days later, he starts complaining of pain in the foot in which the surgery was performed. Today, the situation where the doctor has died. The wife and the son who have been substituted have no medical knowledge."
However, Justice Maheshwari did not agree with this proposition. He said: "Suppose a complaint case is there. A dies, and a complaint is for an act done by a doctor towards a person who is a complainant. For what act, whether the doctor was negligent for rendering service, for such an act, the LRs[legal representations] of the complainant are saying the cause of the issue survives. At the otherside, LRs are saying the cause of the issue survives against the LRs of that doctor. So, the cause of the issue survives is whether entertaining this cause or not...Two things, cause of the issue to proceed and cause of issue to grant relief."
Sarvshree said that if the LRs are to be substituted, they would be in no position to defend the case of whether there was medical negligence or not. She relied upon the Balbir Sing Makol vs Chairman, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital(2000) judgment of the NCDRC.
Whereas, the counsel for the LRs of the consumer prayed that the cause of action may be continued against the LRs of the doctor. As for the compensation, he said that the doctor was well-off and therefore, the LRs can get compensation from his estate.
Case Details: KUMUD LALL v. SURESH CHANDRA ROY (DEAD) THR LRS & ORS.|Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 33646-33647/2018
Appearances: Mr. Raghenth Basant, Sr. Adv. (AC) Mr. Akshay Sahay, AOR Ms. Bagavathy Vennimalai, Adv. Ms. Kaushitak Sharma, Adv. Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, Adv.
For Petitioner(s) : 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