The Supreme Court has addressed a long-standing legal question concerning the survivability of medical negligence claims when the accused doctor dies during the pendency of proceedings.
The bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar has highlighted that the claims purely based on personal injury generally do not survive the death of the wrongdoer. However, claims involving pecuniary loss to the estate or enrichment of the wrongdoer may survive. Consumer law provides for substitution of parties, indicating legislative intent to allow continuation of proceedings in appropriate cases.
The issue raised was whether legal heirs of a deceased medical practitioner can be impleaded and held liable for alleged negligence under consumer law.
The case arose from a consumer complaint filed in 1997 alleging medical negligence by a doctor who performed eye surgery in 1990. The complainant claimed that improper treatment led to loss of vision and sought compensation for medical expenses, mental agony, and permanent damage.
The District Consumer Forum partly allowed the complaint and awarded compensation. However, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission overturned this finding, holding that there was no expert evidence to establish negligence and attributing the vision loss to glaucoma rather than faulty treatment.
The complainant approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in revision. During the pendency of these proceedings, the doctor passed away. The complainant sought substitution of the doctor’s legal heirs, which was allowed by the NCDRC. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court.
The principal question before the Court was: Whether, upon the death of a doctor during appellate proceedings, legal heirs can be impleaded and held liable for alleged medical negligence, and if so, to what extent?
The appellants (legal heirs of the doctor) contended that no decree existed against the doctor at the time of his death, as he had succeeded before the State Commission. Claims of personal injury do not survive against legal representatives under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Medical negligence being a personal tort, proceedings should abate upon death.
The department argued that under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), proceedings can continue if the “right to sue” survives. Any liability, if established, could be satisfied from the estate of the deceased. Consumer law, being a beneficial legislation, should allow continuation of claims.
The Court undertook an extensive examination of the common law maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona (a personal action dies with the person); Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925; The Legal Representatives’ Suits Act, 1855; and procedural provisions under Order XXII CPC and Section 13(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The court noted that the continuation of proceedings depends on whether the “right to sue” survives, which is a matter of substantive law rather than procedural law.
The Court also acknowledged evolving jurisprudence and criticism of rigid application of the common law maxim, especially in modern welfare-oriented legal frameworks.
Case Details
Case Title: Kumud Lall Versus Suresh Chandra Roy
Citation: JURISHOUR-1093-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 33646 – 33647 of 2018
Date: 04/05/2026
