LexKUMUD LALL versus SURESH CHANDRA ROY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 301 : 2026 INSC 443 Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through Lrs and Others (Civil Appeal No(s). 6893-6894 of 2026) 04 May 2026 [J.K. Maheshwari* and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether, upon death of the doctor during pendency of proceedings at appellate stage, the legal heirs can be impleaded and held liable for the alleged act of medical negligence of the deceased doctor, and if yes, then to what extent. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – ss.13(7), 2(b)(v) – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – ss.38(12), 2(5)(vi) – Succession Act, 1925 – s.306 – Legal Representatives Suits Act, 1855 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. 22, r.4 – Continuation of ‘right to sue’ – Death of the alleged medically negligent doctor – Impleading of legal heirs – Complaint against the doctor by the husband alleging deficiency in service by the doctor while performing eye surgery of his wife, resulting in loss of her vision – District Forum partly allowed the complaint holding the doctor negligent for deficiency in service, and awarded compensation – Appeal by the complainant-husband and the doctor – State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant, however allowed the appeal of the doctor holding that in absence of expert evidence to substantiate the allegation of medical negligence leading to loss of vision, holding the doctor guilty for the same not sustainable – During the pendency of the revision petition, the doctor passed away – Complainant-husband filed application for substitution of legal heirs (wife and son) of the doctor, which was allowed – Legal heirs-appellant filed applications u/Ord.22 rr.1 and 2 CPC, praying to drop their names from the proceedings, which was dismissed – Correctness: * Author 302 [2026] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Held: The 1986 Act with 2019 Act, by expressly providing for legal representative for complainant/consumer, the legislative intent is clear, that the claim of the complainant shall not automatically perish upon his death and shall survive through his legal heirs – Legal representative of the deceased can institute a fresh suit or be sued afresh in terms of the 1855 Act or in terms of s.306 – Continuation of suit by or against the legal representative of the deceased has to be in terms of s.306 (substantive law) – Continuation of ‘right to sue’ u/Ord.XXII r.2 r/w r.4 is to be seen on the date of death – Generally, all rights and liabilities to maintain a suit are carried to the legal representative u/s.306 – However, when adjudicating claims under 1st exception to s.306, personal injury claims abate, while claims for or against the estate of the deceased survive – In view thereof, death of the alleged medically negligent doctor, his/her legal heirs can be impleaded and brought on record – Extent of liability will be determined based on the pleadings and evidence presented – Complainant had succeeded before the District Forum and was awarded compensation – However, when taken in appeal by doctor, the State Commission allowed the same and set-aside the award – Aggrieved, the complainant preferred revision before National Commission, pending which, the doctor passed away – As borne from records, ‘right to sue’ if any subsists qua claims against the estate on the death of the opposite party in terms of s.306 r/w Ord. XXII rr.2 and 4 – In order to establish the claims, the National Commission duty bound to adjudicate the negligence aspect, if any by the deceased doctor and resultantly adjudicate the surviving claims – Question as to what claim can be attributed to the accretion of the deceased defendant’s estate needs to be carefully analyzed by NCDRC, depending upon pleadings and proof brought before the Court – Claimant has the duty to first establish the negligence of the deceased doctor and the claims on the estate recoverable as per s.306 – Impugned order confuses claims attributable to estate and holds that any adjudication on merits can be recoverable from the estate of the deceased doctor – Rather, 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 – Matter remitted to NCDRC to be adjudicated within [2026] 5 S.C.R. 303 Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through Lrs and Others the stipulated period – Impugned orders set asid
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.