Medical negligence claims can be pursued against deceased doctor's legal heirs who inherited his estate: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday held that medical negligence cases for compensation can be pursued against legal heirs of the doctor after the doctor's death in order to deal with damages that may have to be paid to the complainant from the doctor’s estate [Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy & Ors.].

A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar clarified that while claims relating to personal injury or suffering may not continue after a person’s death, claims involving financial liability can still be pursued against the estate left behind by the deceased.

It explained that legal heirs cannot be held personally liable for alleged medical negligence, but they can represent the estate of the deceased doctor and may be required to satisfy claims to the extent of the assets inherited by them.

The case arose from a complaint filed in 1997 alleging medical negligence after a woman lost vision in her right eye following surgery performed in 1990. The complainant had sought compensation for treatment expenses and mental agony.

A District Forum in Munger in 2003 found the doctor negligent and awarded compensation of ₹2.60 lakh. However, the State Commission set aside the order in 2005 after noting the absence of expert evidence to establish negligence and observing that the surgery had been performed to relieve the patient’s pain.

The complainant then approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. During the pendency of the proceedings, the doctor passed away in 2009, following which his legal heirs were brought on record.

The heirs challenged their impleadment before the Supreme Court, arguing that the complaint was personal in nature and should not survive after the doctor’s death.

The Supreme Court rejected this contention and held that Indian law does not fully follow the old common law principle that personal actions die with the person. Instead, it permits continuation of proceedings where claims relate to the estate.

In this regard, the Bench referred to the legal position under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and explained the distinction between personal claims and claims affecting property.

“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 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, personal injury claims abate, while claims for or against the estate of the deceased survive,” the Court noted.

The Court further clarified that this principle applies to consumer disputes as well, including cases involving allegations of medical negligence.

“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,” the Bench held.

The Court emphasised that while legal heirs are protected from personal liability, they cannot avoid proceedings altogether when claims are tied to the assets inherited from the deceased.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the impleadment of the legal heirs and remitted the matter back to the National Commission to determine whether medical negligence was established and to assess the extent of financial liability that may be enforced against the estate of the deceased doctor.

The petitioner was represented by advocates Akshay Sahay, Bagavathy Vennimalai, Kaushitak Sharma, Hima Bhardwaj, Sarvshree and Somyashree.

The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Shyam Padman along with advocates Umesh Sinha, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Shefali, Anil Kumar Singh, Himani Chhabra, Devyani Mahra, Jaimon Andrews, Piyo Harold Jaimon, Asitwathi Shyam, Firdouse and Naresh Kumar.

Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant and advocate Varun Kapoor acted as Amici Curiae.

[Read Judgment]