Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy
Supreme Court of India, 4 May 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 443
When a doctor accused of medical negligence dies while consumer proceedings are pending, his legal heirs can be impleaded; under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act personal injury claims abate, but claims against his estate survive.
Facts
The complainant, Suresh Chandra Roy, alleged that Dr. P.B. Lall negligently operated on his wife's right eye in 1990, leading to loss of vision. The District Forum, Munger held the doctor negligent and awarded Rs. 2,60,000 in 2003. The State Commission, Patna allowed the doctor's appeal in 2005 for want of expert evidence. While the complainant's revision was pending before the NCDRC, the doctor died on 4 August 2009. The NCDRC allowed substitution of his wife and son as legal heirs in 2010, and in 2018 dismissed their applications to drop their names, holding them liable to satisfy any decretal amount from the estate. The heirs argued that, with no decree subsisting against the doctor at his death, the proceedings abated. The complainant also died and was substituted. The Court appointed amicus curiae.
Questions before the Court
- Whether, on the death of a doctor during the appellate or revisional stage of consumer proceedings, his legal heirs can be impleaded and held liable for his alleged medical negligence, and if so, to what extent.
What the Court held
- Section 13(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Section 38(12) of the 2019 Act) applies Order XXII CPC, but whether the right to sue survives is a question of substantive law under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read harmoniously with Order XXII. Survival is judged on the date of death.
- Under Section 306 all rights and liabilities generally pass to legal representatives. The exception for personal injuries not causing death is construed strictly: personal injury claims abate, while claims for or against the estate of the deceased survive.
- The 1986 and 2019 Acts contain no substantive provision allowing personal claims to continue, so their beneficial purpose cannot extend survival. Where a decree in the plaintiff's favour stands when the defendant dies, the whole claim is maintainable; otherwise Section 306 governs.
- The NCDRC decision in Balbir Singh Makol was not approved, for applying the common law maxim without its statutory modification, misreading Melepurath Sankunni (confined to defamation) and extending the bar to estate claims.
- The doctor's heirs could be brought on record, but only claims against the estate survive. The NCDRC orders were set aside and the revision remitted for decision within six months, the complainant first having to establish the doctor's negligence.
Why it matters
The judgment states that the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona has been modified in India by statute, including the Fatal Accidents Act and Legal Representatives' Suits Act of 1855 and Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act. It reads the personal injury exception in Section 306 as barring only personal claims, so that estate claims survive against a deceased tortfeasor's heirs. It notes that the holding bears on other personal injury tort claims, such as motor vehicle and industrial accidents, and leaves any wider reform to the Law Commission.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“We are of the opinion that later interpretation is to be preferred over the former for the reason that exceptions have to be strictly interpreted. The scope of exception cannot be allowed to chew the enabling provision which sets the tone for liabilities to be carried by legal representatives for a deceased person. Additionally, the development of common law also points towards distinction in cause of action which are personal as against estate claims.”
“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.”
“Although, the argument looks enticing, we need to interpret the law based on the statutory language. Section 13 (7) of the 1986 left this aspect to be governed by Order XXII of CPC and did not create any such right to continue. Any interpretation to militate against the same, would be against the statutory intention. In any case, we are unable to locate a substantive provision within 1986 enactment or 2019 enactment to allow continuation of such personal claims.”
“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 Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Order XXII Rule 2 and 4 of CPC. In order to establish the claims, the NCDRC is duty bound to adjudicate the negligence aspect, if any by the deceased doctor and resultantly adjudicate the surviving claims.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 306, Indian Succession Act, 1925
- Order XXII Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Order XXII Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Section 13(7), Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- Section 38(12), Consumer Protection Act, 2019
- Section 1, Legal Representatives' Suits Act, 1855
Case and bench
- Parties
- Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs
- Case
- Civil Appeal Nos. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 33646-33647 of 2018), with Civil Appeal Nos. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 33648-33649 of 2018)
- Decided
- 4 May 2026
- Bench
- J.K. Maheshwari, Atul S. Chandurkar
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court delivered by J.K. Maheshwari, J. No separate opinion.