Tort — Medical negligence — Death of doctor during pendency of proceedings — Whether action survives against estate Paras 23, 55–56 Core issue: whether proceedings for medical negligence survive against legal heirs of deceased doctor. Distinction drawn between: purely personal claims, and claims affecting estate / pecuniary liability. Claims impacting estate can survive and be enforced against legal representatives.

advocatemmmohan

APEX COURT HELD THAT 

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 13(7) — Order XXII CPC — Death of opposite party — Substitution of legal representatives — Scope

Paras 34–40, 55–56

• Section 13(7) of the 1986 Act mandates application of Order XXII CPC upon death of either complainant or opposite party.
• Continuation of proceedings depends on whether the right to sue survives.
• Order XXII Rules 2 & 4 CPC are procedural; survivability is governed by substantive law.
• Substitution of legal representatives is permissible where cause of action survives.

---

Indian Succession Act, 1925 — Section 306 — Survival of cause of action — Exception relating to “personal injuries” — Interpretation

Paras 48–52, 55

• Section 306 provides that all causes of action survive except:
  • defamation,
  • assault,
  • other personal injuries not causing death,
  • cases where relief becomes nugatory.
• The expression “other personal injuries” must be read ejusdem generis with defamation and assault.
• Exception must be strictly construed and cannot override the main rule of survivability.

---

Tort — Medical negligence — Death of doctor during pendency of proceedings — Whether action survives against estate

Paras 23, 55–56

• Core issue: whether proceedings for medical negligence survive against legal heirs of deceased doctor.
• Distinction drawn between:
  • purely personal claims, and
  • claims affecting estate / pecuniary liability.
• Claims impacting estate can survive and be enforced against legal representatives.

---

Maxim — Actio personalis moritur cum persona — Applicability — Modern interpretation

Paras 25–29, 54–55

• Maxim implies personal actions die with the person.
• Not of universal application; subject to statutory modifications.
• In modern jurisprudence, rigid application is diluted.
• Not applicable where:
  • estate is affected, or
  • liability can be quantified against estate.

---

Cause of action / Right to sue — Meaning and relevance for survivability

Paras 41–42, 56

• “Right to sue” is synonymous with “cause of action”.
• It comprises bundle of material facts entitling relief.
• Survival depends on nature of claim and relief sought.

---

Legal Representatives — Liability — Extent

Paras 12, 55–56

• Legal representatives step into shoes of deceased only to the extent of estate inherited.
• Liability, if established, is recoverable from estate, not personally.

---

Distinction — Personal injury vs. Loss to estate

Paras 55–56

• Personal injury claims (purely personal) may abate.
• Claims involving:
  • pecuniary loss,
  • enrichment of estate,
    survive against legal representatives.

---

Precedents — Applicability

Paras 53–54

• Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan — applies to purely personal actions like defamation.
• M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeira — survivability depends on impact on estate.
• These precedents reaffirm distinction between personal claims and estate-based claims.

---

 (RATIO)

Paras 55–56

Survival of proceedings upon death of a party depends on the nature of the cause of action; claims affecting estate survive against legal representatives, whereas purely personal claims abate.