Medical negligence: Right to sue survives after doctor's death, legal heirs can be impleaded, rules Supreme Court

New Delhi: In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has held that under the law, the legal heir of a doctor, who is facing any medical negligence case, can be proceeded against after the doctor's death.

The Court clarified that the “right to sue” survives, allowing complainants to pursue legal remedies even after the demise of the concerned doctor.

“...in view of the preceding discussion and the statutory framework provided in 1986 Act as well as 2019 Act, we conclude that upon the death of the alleged medically negligent doctor, his/her legal heirs can be impleaded and brought on record”, observed the apex court bench while approving the NCDRC's findings that “the legal heirs shall be liable to satisfy the decretal amount to the extent payable from the estate left behind, on conclusion of the proceedings.”

The bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar answered a question of law in a more than three-decade-old case, where a doctor, now deceased, had operated on the wife of the complainant (also now deceased) after which she lost her vision.

The complainant initially moved to the district consumer forum, Munger in Bihar, saying that he consulted the doctor (now deceased) at his private clinic on February 10, 1990, after his wife complained of severe pain in her right eye.

On examination, he advised immediate operation, which was done on February 11, 1990, but the pain reoccurred on March 16, 1990, and she was taken back to the doctor

Despite further treatment, there was no relief, and the complainant consulted other doctors at Bhagalpur and Aligarh. As there was no respite, he consulted a doctor at Shankar Netralaya, Madras.

“As alleged, he informed that his wife had already lost vision in the right eye due to wrong treatment and operation, which can further affect the vision in her left eye. On the advice of surgery of his wife’s left eye, she was operated on May 5, 1994. Consequently, the complainant had to visit Madras multiple times, and the treatment of his wife with a local doctor continued till August 5, 1997,” the top court noted.

He filed a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on August 13, 1997, against the doctor for alleged deficiency in service, claiming compensation of Rs 4.5 lakh for his expenses and agony.

During the pendency of the complaint in NCDRC, the doctor passed away on August 4, 2009, and the original complainant also died on January 16, 2014.

Hearing the matter, the top court, which termed the matter as an “exceptional case”, where it has to dredge out older statutory provisions to address the issue, said it was only answering the question on interpretation of the applicable law and not expounding on the normative requirement as to whether the policy adopted by the law applicable is correct or there is a need to change.

Also Read:Supreme Court orders states to prepare 'realistic' action plan to implement ICU guidelines

The bench said in the context of Rule 4 of Order XXII of CPC, one has to understand and see whether the right to sue against such an alleged medically negligent doctor survives or not upon his death.

It said the ‘right to sue’ means the right to seek relief through legal proceedings, and such proceedings, in a general sense, are instituted against the opposite party/defendant(s), who possess a corresponding right to defend, as opposed to the claimant’s right to prosecute.

“The right to defend is intrinsically linked to, and arises from, the right to prosecute, and vice versa. Therefore, for the continuation of proceedings, it is essential that both rights co-exist.

“Nonetheless, in view of the preceding discussion and the statutory framework provided in the 1986 Consumer Protection Act as well as the 2019 Consumer Protection Act, we conclude that upon the death of the alleged medically negligent doctor, his/her legal heirs can be impleaded and brought on record.

“Consequently, the extent of liability will be determined based on the pleadings and evidence presented. The question is answered accordingly,” it held.

The top court, which examined several laws, statutes and English law provisions, said the legal question assumes importance as the implication of the holdings in this case would also apply to numerous types of tortious claims, including personal injuries that do not amount to death, including motor vehicle accidents and other industrial accidents.

“In this context, we only state the principle of law as applicable, without considering any additional policy consideration which may be relevant to be considered elsewhere under different enactments,” it said, adding that in posterity, this case may be a lesson to the students and stakeholders to have a strong emphasis on legal history and jurisprudence.

The top court said the law seems to have been lost to the pages of history due to less tort actions being litigated in India.

“We may note that this court herein is only answering the question on interpretation of the applicable law and not expounding on the normative requirement as to whether the policy adopted by the applicable law is correct or there is a need to change. English law appears to have gone further to preserve tortious liabilities of the deceased defendant.

The bench said that even several judgments and the Haryana Law Commission have also taken a view to recommend amendments.

“We feel that it is appropriate to engage policy experts to debate the need and necessity of expanding the scope of Section 306 of the 1925 Indian Succession Act which deals with demands and rights of action of or against deceased survivors to and against the executor or administrator. The policy consideration is best left to the Law Commission to see whether there is a need to have a re-look at these provisions for future,” it said.

The Court disagreed with the law laid down in NCDRC's decision in Balbir Singh Makol Vs. Chairman, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Others, 2001 (1) CPR 45, which had treated all claims as abating upon the death of a doctor, including the claim against pecuniary loss caused to the patient by the doctor's negligent acts. Instead, the Court held that claims for pecuniary losses would survive even after the death of the doctor under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, which can be settled through the doctor's legal heirs' estates to the extent of their share inherited.

Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act provides that all rights to prosecute any action or special proceeding existing in favour of a person at the time of his death, survive to his executors or administrators, except for a cause of action for personal injuries not causing the death of the party.

"In the context of Rule 4 of Order XXII of CPC, one has to understand and see whether the right to sue against such alleged medically negligent doctor survives or not upon his death. As discussed earlier, the ‘right to sue’ means the right to seek relief through legal proceedings. Such proceedings, in a general sense, are instituted against the opposite party/defendant(s), who possess a corresponding right to defend, as opposed to the claimant’s right to prosecute. The right to defend is intrinsically linked to, and arises from the right to prosecute, and vice-versa. Therefore, for the continuation of proceedings, it is essential that both rights co-exist. Nonetheless, in view of the preceding discussion and the statutory framework provided in 1986 Act as well as 2019 Act, we conclude that upon the death of the alleged medically negligent doctor, his/her legal heirs can be impleaded and brought on record. Consequently, the extent of liability will be determined based on the pleadings and evidence presented. The question is answered accordingly," the apex court held

Also Read:Doctors exclusion from Consumer Protection Act- Supreme Court issues notice to Centre, NMC

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that the matter came up before the division bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar in a special leave petition filed by doctor's kin against the order of May 24, 2018, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The apex court noted that the case arose when the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was in force, which has now been replaced by a new Act. In this situation, the Supreme Court said it needs to examine what would happen to such a complaint when the person accused of negligence has died.

Following this, the bench observed that in cases of negligence, the estate of the deceased person may be liable for compensation through legal heirs. Since the issue has wider legal implications, the Court appointed senior advocate Raghenth Basant and advocate Varun Kapoor as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.

To view the order, click on the link below: