Legal Heir Of Deceased Consumer Can Maintain Complaint On His Behalf: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that any legal heir or representative of a deceased consumer can maintain a consumer complaint on his/ her behalf.

The Court was considering a Consumer Complaint filed by the Representative of a Patient against hospital authorities over delay in platelet transfusion.

The Bench of Justice Manoj Jain held, "The provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, being a welfare legislation, need to be construed in a liberal manner and in any case, the brother of the deceased would still fall within the definition of complainant as he is definitely his representative as well as the legal heir even if, of a little remote degree. Reference be also made to Spring Meadows Hospitals and Ors. v. Harjol Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1801 wherein it is held that any such complaint can be filed by a family member."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Sugata Shankar Roy, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate A.K. Thakur.

Facts of the Case

The younger brother of the Complainant was an engineer who had been working as General Manager was suffering from multiple black patches on his skin and was bleeding also and, therefore, the concerned doctor, on the rolls of his employer, advised him certain tests/investigations which were conducted. The test report indicated platelet counts to be 17000/cmm and since such counts were drastically below the normal range, he was immediately rushed to Apollo Gleneagles Hospital.

According to the Complainant, though there was an immediate need of platelet transfusion, no attention was given to the same and even the admission in the hospital was delayed by more than one hour as valuable time was wasted by the hospital authorities in demanding advance payment.

On the other hand, the Opposite Party contended that such brother of the deceased was not "legally competent" to file complaint when legal heirs of the deceased were alive and, therefore, he had no locus to file such complaint. It was argued that if consumer is no longer alive, complaint can be instituted and pursued by his legal heir or representative.  

Reasoning By Court 

The Court mentioned that during the pendency of the Complaint, the mother of the deceased, who had been impleaded as Co-Petitioner in said Complaint died and her legal heirs were brought on record and one such LR has also, reportedly, expired.

It further stated that when the Complaint was taken up by the NCDRC, though the Commission reiterated that such brother of the deceased qualified to be a "complainant‟ within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(b)(v) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it, in the interest of justice, also observed that there would not be any legal infirmity if such brother continues to pursue his complaint and also impleads the children, widow and mother of the deceased patient as opposite party.

"The direction qua impleadment of mother seemed superfluous as she had already been directed to be impleaded as co-petitioner in complaint", the Court observed.

Noting that it really does not matter whether the complainant describes himself as a trustee or karta or a self-styled caretaker of widow and daughters of the deceased, the Court pointed out that he is, definitely, not a stranger or a rank-outsider. 

"Words “legal heir” and “representative” have not been defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but these cannot be given any restricted and rigid meaning. Moreover, the Act does not make any distinction between a class-I or class-II legal heir. It only refers to word „legal heir‟. Even if argument of the petitioner herein is accepted, since mother, a class-I heir, was already a co-petitioner, the complaint becomes maintainable as such impleadment has to relate back to its date of institution. Moreover, the order of impleadment of mother, as a copetitioner, has already attained finality", the Court observed.

The Application was accordingly disposed of.

Cause Title: Soumya Bhattacharya vs. Sudhir Kumar Thakur & Ors.

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Sugata Shankar Roy

Respondent- Advocates A.K. Thakur, Rishi Raj, Sujeet Kumar, Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Prabir Basu and Rupali S. Ghosh

Click here to read/ download Order