The Supreme Court has ruled that a legal heir or representative of a doctor can be sued for compensation in case of medical negligence, even if the doctor dies during the pendency of the proceedings.
"The legal representative of the deceased can institute a fresh suit or be sued afresh in terms of Legal Representatives Suits Act, 1855, or in terms of Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925,” a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and S. Atul Chandurkar said in a judgment.
"Continuation of suit by or against the legal representative of the deceased has to be in terms of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925," the bench added.
The apex court passed the judgment while upholding a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) decision to implead the wife and son of Dr Lall, an eye specialist, against whom a patient's family filed a medical negligence case over loss of vision following a surgery.
"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. ‘Right to sue’ if any subsists qua claims against the estate on the death of the opposite party in terms of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Order XXII Rule 2 and 4 of CPC,” Justice Maheshwari, who authored the judgment, said.
The apex court asked the NCDRC to examine the alleged medical negligence and pass an order.
The bench passed the directions while disposing of an appeal filed by Kumud Lall and Amit Kumar, wife and son of the deceased Dr Lall, challenging the NCDRC decision to implead them as defendants in the compensation claims suit filed by the victim's family.
The District Consumer Forum of Munger, Bihar, vide an order dated November 5, 2003, partly allowed the complaint alleging medical negligence and held the doctor liable to pay compensation of ₹2,00,000 for loss of vision, ₹35,000 for expenditure and treatment and ₹25,000 for mental agony within three months.
However, on an appeal, the state consumer forum set aside the district forum’s order and held that the patient's loss of vision was due to glaucoma and could not be cured even after the surgery performed to the best of his abilities by Dr Lall.
Aggrieved, the patient's family filed an appeal before the NCDRC, which sought to implead Dr Lall's wife and son after he passed away on August 4, 2009.