Guwahati: The Supreme Court has held that compensation claims in medical negligence cases can continue against the legal heirs of a deceased doctor, with liability restricted to the estate inherited by them.
A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and A.S. Chandurkar observed that while causes of action relating purely to personal injury do not survive the death of a party, claims involving pecuniary liability linked to the deceased’s estate may continue.
“..we conclude that upon the death of the alleged medically negligent doctor, his or her legal heirs can be impleaded and brought on record. Consequently, the extent of liability will be determined on the basis of the pleadings and evidence,” the Bench said in its May 4 judgment.
The ruling came in a case arising from a medical negligence complaint filed in 1997 by a woman who lost vision in her right eye following a surgery conducted in 1990. She had sought compensation for treatment expenses and mental agony.
In 2003, the District Consumer Forum in Munger held the doctor negligent and awarded compensation of Rs 2.60 lakh. However, the State Commission later set aside the order, observing that the surgery had been performed to alleviate the patient’s pain.
The complainant subsequently moved the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). During the pendency of proceedings, the doctor died in 2009 and his legal heirs were brought on record.
Before the Supreme Court, the heirs argued that the proceedings could not survive the doctor’s death as the claim related to personal injury. Rejecting the contention, the court held that while legal heirs cannot be personally liable, proceedings linked to the estate inherited from the deceased may continue.
The Bench, however, clarified that the NCDRC would have to carefully examine the nature and extent of claims enforceable against the estate.
“…what claim can be attributed to the accretion of the deceased defendant’s estate needs to be carefully analysed by the NCDRC, as we have dealt only with the question of law,” the court observed, adding that the complainant must first establish medical negligence.
Referring to Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the court noted that claims of a purely personal nature abate upon death, whereas claims involving financial liability tied to the estate can survive.
The Bench also observed that there may be a need to revisit the scope of Section 306 in light of developments in English law, where tortious liability, including personal injury claims, survives even after the death of a defendant.
“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 Act,” the court said, adding that the matter may require examination by the Law Commission.
The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the impleading of the doctor’s legal heirs and remitted the matter to the NCDRC to determine whether medical negligence was established and to assess the extent of liability enforceable against the estate left behind by the deceased doctor.