LAWS(SC)-2026-5-2

KUMUD LALL Vs. SURESH CHANDRA ROY

Decided On May 04, 2026
Kumud Lall Appellant
V/S
SURESH CHANDRA ROY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The present appeals arise out of the challenge preferred by the legal heirs [Wife and son] of the alleged medically negligent doctor (deceased now), to the order [26/5/2010 (Impugned Order I) in M.A. No. 1214 of 2009 (Application for substitution) in Revision Petition No. 432 of 2006] passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short 'NCDRC'), thereby allowing the application filed by the complainant (deceased now) seeking substitution of the legal heirs of the doctor, pending revision and directing them to be brought on record. On filing review, it was also dismissed [vide order dtd. 24/5/2018 (Impugned Order II) passed in M.A. No. 324 of 2011 (Review) in Revision Petition No. 432 of 2006 and R.A. No. 70 of 2011 (Review) in Revision Petition No. 432 of 2006] observing that the legal heirs shall be liable to satisfy the decretal amount to the extent payable from the estate left behind, on conclusion of the proceedings. Hence, the instant appeals to assail the orders passed in main case and review.

(3.) The case as set up by the complainant before District Forum, Munger, Bihar (in short 'District Forum') was that he consulted Dr. P.B. Lall (deceased) at his private clinic on 10/2/1990 due to complain of severe pain by his wife in her right eye. On examination, Dr. Lall advised immediate operation, which was done on 11/2/1990. However, the pain reoccurred on 16/3/1990 and she was taken back to Dr. Lall. Despite further treatment, there was no relief. The complainant consulted with other doctors at Bhagalpur and Aligarh, but having no respite, he consulted Dr. B. Sridhar at Shankar Netralaya, Madras. As alleged, he informed that his wife had already lost vision of right eye due to wrong treatment and operation, which can further affect the vision in her left eye. On advice of surgery of his wife's left eye, she was operated on 5/5/1994. Consequently, the complainant had to visit Madras multiple times, and the treatment of his wife with local doctor continued till 5/8/1997.