- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with readers working within the Pharmaceuticals & BioTech and Law Firm industries
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Intellectual Property, Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court in Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy held that the death of an alleged negligent doctor does not automatically extinguish a medical negligence claim against him. The Court held that claims relating to medical expenses and other pecuniary losses may survive against the deceased doctor's estate, whereas purely personal claims (against causing pain and suffering and other personal injuries) may not survive.
The Court reached the conclusion after analysing the principles governing the survivability of causes of action and the common law maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona ("a personal cause of action dies with the person"). The Court clarified that Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ("Succession Act") cannot be mechanically applied to hold that a medical negligence claim stands extinguished upon the death of the alleged negligent doctor. Instead, the adjudicating forum must determine, on a claim-by-claim basis, which claims survive against the deceased doctor's estate and which are purely personal and therefore stand extinguished.
The Court held that the legal heirs of a deceased doctor may be impleaded in pending medical negligence proceedings in respect of claims relating to medical expenses and other pecuniary losses suffered by the injured. However, the heirs are not personally liable for the alleged negligence. Their liability is confined to the deceased doctor's estate and only in respect of claims that survive under Section 306 of the Succession Act.
The Court did not lay down an exhaustive list of claims that survive against the deceased doctor's estate, holding that such determination must be made by the adjudicating forum based on the pleadings, evidence and the nature of the claims in each case.
The judgment has an even wider significance as the Court clarified that the principles governing the survivability of causes of action would equally apply to other tortious claims, including motor vehicle accidents and other personal injury claims.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
