Sign in Subscribe
Consumer Protection Act

Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy (D) T2026 INSC 443 - Consumer Protection Act - Medical Negligence - Death Of Doctor - Appellate Stage

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? If yes, to what extent

CaseCiter

• 3 min read
Share

Consumer Protection Act 2019- Upon death of the alleged medically negligent doctor during pendency of proceedings at appellate stage, his/her legal heirs can be impleaded and brought on record. (Para 67) ‘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. (Para 68)

Legal Maxim - Actio personalis moritur cum persona - i. The common law maxim ‘actio personalis moritur cum persona’ in India has been statutorily modified by various statutory instruments such as Fatal Accidents’ Act of 1855, Legal representatives’ Suits Act of 1855, Indian Succession Act of 1925, etc.; ii. The legal representative of the deceased can institute a fresh suit or be sued afresh in terms Legal Representatives Suits Act, 1855 or in terms of Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925; iii. Continuation of suit by or against the legal representative of the deceased has to be in terms of Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (substantive law); iv. Procedural prescription under Order XXII of CPC, concerning substitution of legal representative of the deceased party should be harmoniously construed with Section 306 of Indian Succession Act. v. The continuation of ‘right to sue’ under Order XXII Rule 2 read with Rule 4 is to be seen on the date of death. vi. 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. (Para 64)

Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy (D) T2026 INSC 443 - Consumer Protection Act - Medical Negligence - Death Of Doctor - Appellate Stage
Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy (D) T2026 INSC 443 - Consumer Protection Act - Medical Negligence - Death Of Doctor - Appellate Stage.pdf
446 KB
download-circle

Case Info

Case Information Extracted


Case name and neutral citation:Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs and Others; Amit Kumar v. Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs and Others — 2026 INSC 443


Coram:J.K. Maheshwari J. and Atul S. Chandurkar J.


Judgment date:4 May 2026 (New Delhi)


Case laws and citations referred

  1. Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair, (1986) 1 SCC 118
  2. M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeira, (1988) 1 SCC 556
  3. Balbir Singh Makol v. Chairman, M/s Gangaram Hospital & Others, 2001 (1) CPR 45 (NC)
  4. Neeraj Amarnath Dora v. Nandan Hospital & Others, II (2011) CPJ 171 (NC)
  5. G. Jayaprakash v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1977 AP 209
  6. State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 1̲3̲3 (cited for “right to sue”/cause of action)
  7. Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association v. Sri Bala & Co., 2025 INSC 42
  8. Haridas Ramdas v. Ramdas Mathuradas, (1889) ILR 13 Bom 677
  9. Rustomji Dorabji v. W.H. Nurse, AIR 1921 Mad 142 (FB)
  10. Earlier English cases and commentary (as persuasive):
  • Hambly v. Trott, 1776 1 Cowp 371
  • Phillips v. Homfray, (1883) 24 Ch D 439
  • Gopal v. Ramchandra, ILR 26 Bom 597
  • Various Nagpur, Madras, Patna, Bombay decisions listed in Veerappa and Rustomji (e.g., Punjab Singh v. Ramautar Singh; Irulappa v. Madhava; Maniramlala v. Chattibai; Baboolal v. Ramlal; Palaniappa Chettiar v. Rajah of Ramnad; Motilal v. Harnarayan; Ratanlal v. Baboolal).

Statutes / laws referred

  1. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – especially Section 13(7) (application of Order XXII CPC on death of complainant/opposite party).
  2. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 38(12); definition of “complainant” in Section 2(5)(vi).
  3. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXII Rules 2, 4, 11; Section 2(11); Section 151.
  4. Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 306.
  5. Legal Representatives’ Suits Act, 1855 (Act XII of 1855) – Sections 1–2.
  6. Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (Indian Fatal Accidents Act).
  7. Probate and Administration Act, 1881 – Section 89 (historical predecessor of Section 306).
  8. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – reference to “assault” as defined in IPC.
  9. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and 2019 definitions of “complainant” (Section 2(b)(v) in 1986 Act; Section 2(5)(vi) in 2019 Act).

Also referred:

  • 178th Report of the Law Commission of India (December 2001).
  • 8th Report of the Haryana Law Commission (02.12.2022).
  • Kerala Torts (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976.
  • English Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934 (referred to in its 1935 consolidation discussion).

Brief three‑sentence summary


The Supreme Court held that, on the death of a doctor facing a medical‑negligence consumer claim, the doctor’s legal heirs can be impleaded and proceedings may continue, but only to the limited extent of claims that are truly against the doctor’s estate and not purely personal injury claims that die with the person under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Reconciling Section 306 with Order XXII CPC, the Court clarified that personal causes of action (like pain, suffering, reputation) abate on death, while pecuniary “loss to estate” claims survive and can be enforced against the estate, overruling the broader view earlier taken by the NCDRC in Balbir Singh Makol. Applying this, it set aside the NCDRC’s substitution and review orders but restored the revision petition, directing NCDRC to determine medical negligence and then confine any liability to the surviving, estate‑based heads of claim within six months.