“Exceptions have to be strictly interpreted. The scope of exception cannot be allowed to chew the enabling provision.”

With this observation, the Supreme Court on May 4, 2026, clarified an important question concerning the survival of medical negligence claims after the death of the doctor accused of negligence. In Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy, a bench of Hon’ble Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Hon’ble Justice Atul S. Chandurkar inter alia held that the legal heirs of a deceased doctor can be brought on record in pending consumer proceedings, with the survivability of claims to be determined in light of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

In doing so, the Court overruled the five-judge bench decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Balbir Singh Makol v. Chairman, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital (2001), which had inter alia held that medical negligence claims abate entirely upon the death of the doctor.

Having advised and represented a numerous hospitals, healthcare organizations and medical professionals in complex medical negligence disputes over the years, we can say that this judgment is a significant breakthrough in the evolving ambit of medical negligence jurisprudence.

The judgment substantially narrows the application of the common law maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona, simply meaning“a personal action dies with the person”, whose mechanical application had been criticised by the Law Commission of India in its 178th Report as “unworkable” in modern social jurisprudence. The Apex Court here has clarified that pecuniary claims arising from alleged medical negligence may survive against the estate of a deceased doctor.

The ruling arose out of an alleged medical negligence dispute linked to an eye surgery performed in 1990. The case concerned treatment administered by Dr. P.B. Lall, an ophthalmologist, to the wife of the original complainant, Suresh Chandra Roy, a resident of Munger, Bihar.

According to the complainant, his wife developed severe pain in her right eye in February 1990 and was advised immediate surgery by Dr. Lall. The pain allegedly returned within weeks, and her condition progressively worsened despite further treatment, leading to a permanent loss of vision in her right eye due to improper treatment and surgery.

A consumer complaint was eventually filed in 1997 claiming compensation for medical expenses, loss of eyesight, and mental agony. The District Consumer Forum held the doctor negligent and awarded compensation of INR 2,60,000.

The State Commission later reversed the finding, inter alia holding that there was no expert evidence establishing medical negligence.

Finally, during the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in revision proceedings, the doctor passed in 2009. His death shifted the dispute from a routine medical negligence matter into a significant legal question. What began as a consumer dispute ultimately transformed into a larger debate on whether proceedings alleging medical negligence survive after the death of the doctor against whom the allegations are made.

Interestingly, in one of our matters, a medical professional was deleted from the array of parties following her demise by the NCDRC, and the complaint qua her stood dismissed. The distinguishing factor in that case was that there was no prior adjudication or order passed by any of the courts at the stage of her deletion. This stands in contrast to the present matter, where the claim had already been partly allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, thereby raising distinct considerations regarding the survival and continuation of proceedings

Owing to Dr. Lall’s demise, complainant sought inclusion of his legal heirs which was well resisted by them, arguing that since no decree existed against Dr. Lall on the date of his death, the proceedings stood extinguished under the principle of actio personalis moritur cum persona.

Unfortunately, during the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the original complainant had also passed away, and the litigation survived only through their respective legal heirs.

The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the legal heirs of a deceased doctor could continue to face proceedings for alleged medical negligence.

The Supreme Court rejected the broad interpretation previously adopted by the NCDRC, drawing a distinction between purely personal claims and pecuniary claims affecting the estate. The Court inter alia held that while claims relating to pain, suffering, or mental agony may abate upon the death of the wrongdoer, pecuniary losses already suffered by the complainant, including medical expenses and financial losses capable of computation, survive against the estate of the deceased doctor in the hands of the legal heirs.

The NCDRC has now been directed to adjudicate the revision petition afresh and determine whether negligence is made out and, if so, what part of the claim survives against the estate of the deceased doctor.

Although the dispute arose from a medical negligence complaint, the Court observed that the principles discussed in the judgment could extend to other tort claims involving personal injury and pecuniary loss. More importantly, the ruling restores balance to a legal principle that had, for years, often been applied mechanically without examining whether the claim truly related to personal injury or loss to the estate.

The timeline of the case also reflects the realities of prolonged litigation in India. A woman allegedly lost vision in one eye in 1990. The doctor accused of negligence died in 2009. The complainant himself died in 2014 while the proceedings were still pending. The legal issue was finally settled by the Supreme Court in 2026, nearly thirty-six years after the surgery in question.

The Court has now clarified that the death of a doctor does not automatically extinguish a medical negligence claim. The case also highlights the length of litigation in India where neither the doctor nor the complainant was alive to see the outcome of the dispute they had spent years contesting.

Authors

Mr. Sudhir Mishra
Founder & Managing Partner
Trust Legal Advocates & Consultants

Petal Chandhok
Partner Trust Legal Advocates & Consultants

Garima Raisinghani
Senior Associate
Trust Legal Advocates & Consultants