Doctor's Legal Heirs Liable For Medical Negligence Under Consumer Protection Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 4) 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. “...in view of the preceding discussion and the statutory framework provided in 1986 Act as well as 2019 Act, we conclude that upon the death of the alleged medically negligent doctor, his/her legal heirs can be impleaded and brought on record.”, observed a bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar while approving the NCDRC's findings that “the legal heirs shall be liable to satisfy the decretal amount to the extent payable from the estate left behind, on conclusion of the proceedings.” The Court disagreed with the law laid down in NCDRC's decision in Balbir Singh Makol Vs. Chairman, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Others, 2001 (1) CPR 45, which had treated all claims as abating upon the death of a doctor, including the claim against pecuniary loss caused to the patient by the doctor's negligent acts. Instead, the Court held that claims for pecuniary losses would survive even after the death of the doctor under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, which can be settled through the doctor's legal heirs' estates to the extent of their share inherited. Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act provides that all rights to prosecute any action or special proceeding existing in favour of a person at the time of his death, survive to his executors or administrators, except for a cause of action for personal injuries not causing the death of the party. Background The dispute arose from a medical negligence complaint filed against a doctor, before the consumer fora. The complaint alleged a deficiency in medical services and sought compensation for the harm caused to the patient. The State Consumer Commission ruled in favour of the doctor. Aggrieved, the patient (complainant) challenged this decision by filing a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). During the pendency of the revision proceedings, the doctor passed away. Consequently, an application was filed before the NCDRC seeking substitution of his legal heirs—his wife and son—in place of the deceased doctor. The legal heirs opposed their impleadment, contending that a claim for medical negligence is a personal cause of action and, therefore, does not survive after the death of the doctor. They argued that the proceedings should abate in light of the common law principle actio personalis moritur cum persona. However, the NCDRC allowed the substitution of the legal heirs, holding that the complaint could continue. Challenging this decision, the legal heirs approached the Supreme Court, raising the issue of whether such claims survive and whether they can be impleaded in ongoing proceedings.DecisionRefusing to interfere with the NCDRC's ruling, the judgment authored by Justice Maheshwari ruled that legal heirs of a deceased doctor can be brought on record in pending proceedings but clarified that their liability is limited strictly to the extent of the estate inherited, and they cannot be held personally liable beyond the assets of the deceased. The Court directed that consumer fora must first determine whether negligence is established, and then distinguish between recoverable estate-based claims and non-survivable personal claims. “the Claimant has the duty to first establish the negligence of the deceased doctor and the claims on the estate recoverable as per Section 306 of the 1925 Act”, and if it is established that claims attributable to estate can be recoverable from the estate of the deceased doctor, then “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.”, the court observed. The following principles of law were laid down:- "i. The common law maxim 'actio personalis moritur cum persona' in India has been statutorily modified by various statutory instruments such as Fatal Accidents' Act of 1855, Legal representatives' Suits Act of 1855, Indian Succession Act of 1925, etc.; ii. That the legal representative of the deceased can institute a fresh suit or be sued afresh in terms Legal Representatives Suits Act, 1855 or in terms of Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925; iii. Continuation of suit by or against the legal representative of the deceased has to be in terms of Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (substantive law); iv. Procedural prescription under Order XXII of CPC, concerning substitution of legal representative of the deceased party should be harmoniously construed with Section 306 of Indian Succession Act. v. The continuation of 'right to sue' under Order XXII Rule 2 read with Rule 4 is to be seen on the date of...

Doctor's Legal Heirs Liable For Medical Negligence Under Consumer Protection Act : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

The liability of the legal heirs is limited to the extent of the doctor's estate which devolves upon them, the Court stated.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Doctor's Legal Heirs Liable For Medical Negligence Under Consumer Protection Act : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

The liability of the legal heirs is limited to the extent of the doctor's estate which devolves upon them, the Court stated.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers