The Supreme Court held that legal heirs of a doctor accused of medical negligence may be impleaded and proceeded against even after the doctor’s death. The court settled the decades-old legal dispute.
The Supreme Court ruled that the legal heirs of a doctor accused of medical negligence may be impleaded and proceeded against even after the doctor’s death.
A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar answered a question of law in a dispute that has been pending for more than three decades.
The matter relates to a doctor now deceased who operated on a woman in 1990. Following the surgery, it was alleged that she lost vision in her right eye. The court held that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (and the 2019 Act), the right to sue does not end with the death of the doctor alleged to have caused negligence.
ALSO READ: ‘Dr’ Is Not Doctors’ Monopoly: Kerala High Court Clears Use of ‘Doctor’ Title
While examining provisions including Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and other legal principles (including those derived from English law), the bench ruled that proceedings can be continued by bringing the heirs on record.
However, it clarified that the extent of the heirs’ liability will depend on the pleadings and evidence already on record.
The court emphasized that the right to sue and the right to defend are closely connected, but noted that the statutory scheme under consumer law allows the case to proceed against heirs notwithstanding the doctor’s death.
It also stressed that it was only interpreting the existing legal framework and did not comment on whether policy changes are necessary.
The bench further observed that the decision may have broader implications for other tort-related claims, such as personal injury cases arising from motor vehicle accidents and industrial mishaps.
The court noted that tort actions are rarely pursued in India, which has contributed to such legal principles being largely forgotten over time. It suggested that policy experts and the Law Commission consider whether the scope of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 should be expanded.
ALSO READ: Kerala High Court Rules: Doctors Not Liable for Every Patient Death During Treatment
The original complaint was filed in 1997 by a man from Munger, Bihar, against Dr. P B Lall, alleging deficiency in service.
The complainant’s wife reportedly underwent surgery at Dr. Lall’s clinic in February 1990 after suffering severe eye pain, but allegedly lost her vision due to improper treatment. The complainant sought Rs 4.5 lakh in compensation.
Both the doctor and the original complainant passed away while the case remained pending for years.
Case Title: Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy & Ors.