New Delhi, January 21, 2026
In a development that could reshape accountability in consumer disputes involving medical negligence, the Supreme Court of India has decided to examine whether legal heirs can be held responsible for compensation claims after the death of a person found negligent under the Consumer Protection Act.
A bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar on Tuesday appointed Senior Advocate Raghunath Basant, along with counsel Varun Kapoor, as amicus curiae to assist in addressing the issue's "wide ramifications." The court has stayed ongoing proceedings before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and scheduled the next hearing for February 3.
The case, titled Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Thr. LRS & Ors. (SLP Nos. 33646-33647/2018), originates from a 2018 consumer complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant alleged medical negligence by Dr. Suresh Chandra Roy, leading to adverse health outcomes. The District Consumer Redressal Forum initially ruled in favor of the complainant, awarding compensation. However, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission overturned this decision, prompting an appeal to the NCDRC.
Tragedy struck during the NCDRC proceedings: Dr. Roy passed away, followed by the death of the original complainant, Kumud Lall. Legal heirs of Lall then approached the Supreme Court via a special leave petition, seeking to revive the claim and enforce liability on Dr. Roy's estate through his successors.
The pivotal question now before the apex court revolves around the provisions of the revamped Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which replaced the 1986 law. Specifically, it probes whether a negligence-based complaint survives the death of the accused party and if heirs can be burdened with paying compensation from the deceased's estate. "Considering the issue as involved, the case is having wide ramifications, we deem it appropriate to appoint Mr. Raghunath Basant, learned senior counsel and Mr. Varun Kapoor, learned counsel, to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae," the bench observed in its January 13 order.
Legal experts view this as a landmark inquiry with implications for countless unresolved consumer cases, particularly in healthcare where negligence claims are common. Under the 2019 Act, Section 2(7) defines a "consumer" to include legal heirs in cases of death, but the liability of the opposite party's successors remains ambiguous. Proponents of heir liability argue it ensures justice for victims by tapping into inherited assets, while critics warn it could unfairly penalize families uninvolved in the original wrongdoing.
The amicus curiae's input is expected to clarify whether the estate's liability extends to heirs, drawing parallels to precedents in tort law and inheritance statutes. As consumer rights evolve in India, this ruling could set a precedent for balancing redressal with equitable succession.
The Supreme Court's intervention underscores its role in interpreting consumer laws amid rising litigation—over 5 lakh cases pending across forums as of 2025. Stakeholders, including patient advocacy groups and medical associations, are closely watching the February hearing for clarity on posthumous accountability.
For More News Updates Follow Us On Www.tconews.in
