Liberal Interpretation of “Legal Heir or Representative” under the Consumer Protection Act: Brother of Deceased Consumer Has Locus to Maintain Medical Negligence Complaint; Impleadment of a Class-I Heir Relates Back

Case: Soumya Bhattacharya v. Sudhir Kumar Thakur & Ors.
Citation: 2025 DHC 8289
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain
Date: 18 September 2025
Case No.: CM(M) 757/2022 & CM APPL. 33618/2022

Introduction

This judgment resolves a recurring question in consumer jurisprudence: who has the locus standi to prosecute a consumer complaint when the consumer has died? The Delhi High Court considered whether Dr. Sudhir Kumar Thakur, brother of the deceased consumer, could maintain a medical negligence complaint against a hospital and its doctors, including Dr. Soumya Bhattacharya, in circumstances where the deceased’s widow and daughters were not on record as co-complainants due to inability to serve them.

The petitioner (Dr. Soumya Bhattacharya, OP No. 3 before the NCDRC) challenged the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) decision that the deceased’s brother had locus. Central to the dispute were: (i) the interpretation of “legal heir or representative” under Section 2(1)(b)(v) of the CPA 1986; (ii) whether a Class-II heir (brother) can maintain a complaint when Class-I heirs (widow, children, mother) exist; and (iii) the effect of earlier impleadment of the deceased’s mother (a Class-I heir) as co-complainant and subsequent procedural orders, including a Supreme Court direction regarding impleadment of heirs.

Factual Background and Procedural History

Factual background

The deceased, Mr. Shambhu Nath Thakur, a BITS Pilani graduate and General Manager at Texmaco Ltd., presented with multiple black patches and bleeding. Lab tests on 07.04.2010 revealed a dangerously low platelet count (17,000/cmm). He was rushed to Apollo Gleneagles Hospital, Kolkata (OP No. 1), but allegedly faced delayed admission over advance payment requirements despite immediate need for platelet transfusion and a known history of hypertension with Aspirin intake. He died on 09.04.2010.

Alleging medical negligence, his brother, Dr. Sudhir Kumar Thakur, filed Consumer Complaint No. 114 of 2012 before the NCDRC against the hospital and attending doctors, including Dr. Soumya Bhattacharya (OP No. 3). The complainant described himself as a “trustee” acting on behalf of the deceased’s widow and children.

Procedural milestones

• 28.01.2016: The NCDRC noted an application by the deceased’s mother seeking to be added as a co-complainant. Objections to locus were rejected; the mother (a Class-I heir) was impleaded as co-petitioner.
• 15.12.2017: Review application by the opposite party was dismissed. The NCDRC directed that the widow and minor daughters be impleaded as parties, recognizing them as necessary and affected parties.
• 12.02.2019: The NCDRC reiterated that the brother qualified as “complainant” under Section 2(1)(b)(v) of the CPA 1986, and directed, in the interest of justice, that the widow, children, and mother also be impleaded as opposite parties (OP Nos. 8–11). This was arguably superfluous as the mother was already a co-complainant.
• 26.04.2019: On appeal (Civil Appeal No. 3876/2019), the Supreme Court directed that the heirs/legal representatives “impl ead themselves as co-petitioners” within six weeks, with liberty to the appellant to challenge locus if they decline. No opinion on merits was expressed.
• Subsequently: The mother (already a co-petitioner) died; her legal representatives were brought on record. The widow and daughters could not be served owing to lack of correct addresses, despite attempts.
• 07.12.2021: The NCDRC rejected the maintainability objection again. That order was challenged before the Delhi High Court in the present petition.

Issues

• Whether, under Section 2(1)(b)(v) of the CPA 1986, a deceased consumer’s brother has locus standi to file and prosecute a consumer complaint for medical negligence.
• Whether the existence and non-impleadment of Class-I heirs (widow and daughters) defeats the complaint’s maintainability when a Class-I heir (mother) has already been impleaded as co-complainant.
• Whether labels such as “trustee” or “karta” affect locus under the CPA 1986.
• Whether procedural impediments in serving certain heirs justify re-opening locus at the final hearing stage.

Summary of the Judgment

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner’s challenge and affirmed the NCDRC’s view that the brother has locus to maintain the consumer complaint. The Court held:

• Section 2(1)(b)(v) of the CPA 1986 permits a “legal heir or representative” of a deceased consumer to file a complaint. The Act is welfare legislation and must be construed liberally. The terms “legal heir” and “representative” are not defined in the Act and cannot receive a narrow or rigid construction.
• The Act does not distinguish between Class-I and Class-II heirs. A brother is not a stranger and can qualify as a “legal heir or representative.”
• Even assuming arguendo that priority should lie with Class-I heirs, the impleadment of the deceased’s mother (a Class-I heir) as a co-complainant in 2016 cures any technical defect. That impleadment relates back to the date of the complaint and has attained finality.
• The inability to serve the widow and daughters, despite best efforts, does not imply resistance to impleadment; attempts to revive the locus objection were deemed a delaying tactic.
• Reliance was placed on Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia (AIR 1998 SC 1801), recognizing that complaints can be filed by family members.
• Notably, the complainant-brother had filed an affidavit disavowing any personal claim to compensation, requesting that any award be paid to the widow, children, and mother of the deceased.

The High Court requested the NCDRC to expedite the already long-pending matter (at final arguments stage) and to ensure the memo of parties aligns with the Supreme Court’s directions. The petition and pending application were dismissed.

Analysis

Statutory framework and key provision

Section 2(1)(b), CPA 1986 — “complainant” means … (v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative; who or which makes a complaint.

The judgment turns on the breadth of “legal heir or representative” and the consumer-friendly, remedial character of the CPA 1986. The legislature deliberately uses a capacious phrase that is not further defined, signaling an intention to avoid hyper-technical exclusions and to preserve access to remedies for those directly impacted by consumer wrongs, including medical negligence causing death.

Precedents cited and their influence

• Spring Meadows Hospital and Ors. v. Harjol Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1801:
  • Recognized that family members can maintain consumer complaints in the context of medical negligence. Although that case addressed slightly different facets (e.g., whether parents who pay are “consumers”), its rationale—recognizing family members’ standing and the Act’s remedial purpose—fortifies a liberal reading of who may complain.
  • The Delhi High Court uses Spring Meadows to underwrite the view that a brother, undeniably a family member and stakeholder in the deceased’s estate and welfare of dependents, is not a “stranger.”
• Supreme Court’s order dated 26.04.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 3876/2019:
  • The Court directed that heirs/legal representatives “impl ead themselves as co-petitioners” within six weeks, failing which the appellant could challenge the complainant’s locus. No view was expressed on merits.
  • The Delhi High Court reads this as a procedural facilitation—not a bar to maintainability—especially because a Class-I heir (mother) was already on record as co-complainant since 2016, a fact apparently not before the Supreme Court due to absence of notice at that time.
  • Crucially, service difficulties concerning the widow and daughters cannot be equated with refusal to implead, and thus do not trigger the contingency contemplated by the Supreme Court (i.e., heirs “decline” to implead).

Legal reasoning distilled

1. Welfare orientation and liberal construction:

   Consumer protection statutes are remedial. Technical hurdles must not thwart substantive justice. Construing “legal heir or representative” narrowly—e.g., to only Class-I heirs—would be at odds with the statute’s purpose and text, which eschew such subclassification. The Court emphasizes that “legal heir” and “representative” in the CPA 1986 cannot be given a “restricted and rigid meaning.”

2. “Brother” as legal heir/representative:

   A brother is indisputably family and often a manager of the deceased’s affairs in Indian socio-legal reality. He may be a Class-II heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, but the CPA 1986 does not import HSA’s class-based heirship hierarchy. The complainant’s description of himself as “trustee/karta/caretaker” is legally inessential; what matters is that he is neither a stranger nor a rank outsider and is acting on behalf of the widow and children.

3. Relation-back and curing of defects:

   The deceased’s mother (a Class-I heir) was impleaded as co-complainant in 2016. That impleadment attained finality and, in the Court’s view, relates back to the date of institution, curing any arguable initial infirmity. Thus, even on the petitioner’s own premise (preference for Class-I heirs), the complaint is maintainable.

4. Supreme Court’s 2019 direction harmonized:

   The Supreme Court’s order was designed to streamline representation by co-petitioners; it was not a mandate to dismiss proceedings if service/impleadment proved practically difficult. In the absence of any “decline” by the heirs (they could not be reached), the liberty to challenge locus does not arise on those terms. The High Court treats renewed locus objections, given the mother’s earlier impleadment and the persistent service issues, as an attempt to delay.

5. Equitable assurance regarding compensation:

   The brother’s affidavit disavowing personal entitlement to compensation, and seeking its award to the widow, children, and mother, further demonstrates representative bona fides and mitigates any concern about misdirected recovery.

Impact and implications

The ruling has several practical and doctrinal consequences:

• Broader standing for family members:

  Consumer fora within Delhi’s jurisdiction—and elsewhere as persuasive authority—can treat brothers and similarly placed relatives as “legal heirs or representatives” capable of pursuing claims arising out of a deceased consumer’s cause of action, including medical negligence. This guards against impunity when primary dependents cannot immediately participate.

• No Class-I/Class-II straitjacket under the CPA:

  The absence of a statutory distinction in the CPA 1986 (and the corresponding definition in the CPA 2019) reinforces that access to consumer remedies is not to be filtered through succession classifications. The consumer forum’s focus remains on effective representation and substantive adjudication.

• Relation-back stabilizes proceedings:

  The notion that impleadment of a Class-I heir relates back prevents avoidable dismissals and restarts. It promotes continuity in long-pending matters, as here (originating in 2012 and earlier events of 2010).

• Deterring tactical objections:

  The Court’s description of the repeated locus challenge as a delaying tactic sends a signal that procedural maneuvers should not obstruct final adjudication of medical negligence controversies.

• Alignment with CPA 2019:

  The CPA 2019 retains “legal heir or representative of a deceased consumer” in its definition of “complainant.” This judgment’s reasoning therefore remains salient even for cases governed by the newer Act.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Locus standi:

  The legal capacity or right to bring and maintain a case. In consumer disputes involving a deceased consumer, the CPA extends locus to “legal heirs or representatives.”

• Legal heir vs. representative:

  “Legal heir” denotes a person entitled to inherit under personal law. “Representative” is broader—it includes those who lawfully act for or manage the deceased’s estate or interests. The CPA does not limit either term to specific classes or strict CPC categories.

• Class-I and Class-II heirs (Hindu Succession Act, 1956):

  For intestate succession in Hindu law, Class-I heirs include spouse, children, and mother; Class-II heirs include siblings, etc. The CPA 1986 does not adopt this hierarchy to police who may file a consumer complaint; it simply speaks of “legal heir.”

• Relation-back:

  A procedural concept whereby certain amendments/impleadments are treated as effective from the original filing date, thereby curing defects and preserving continuity of the cause.

• Welfare legislation and liberal interpretation:

  Laws enacted to protect vulnerable interests (like consumers) are read expansively to further their remedial purpose, resisting technicalities that would defeat substantive rights.

• NCDRC:

  The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is the apex quasi-judicial consumer forum under the CPA framework, hearing original complaints beyond a pecuniary threshold and appeals from State Commissions.

Practical Guidance for Future Cases

• When a consumer dies, any close family member managing the estate or dependents can file as “legal heir or representative.” Clearly state the representative capacity and the beneficiaries (e.g., widow, children).
• Promptly seek impleadment of available Class-I heirs. Document diligent efforts to trace and serve others; courts will not penalize bona fide inability to serve.
• Consider an affidavit clarifying that compensation, if awarded, is intended for the deceased’s dependents, to preempt objections about personal benefit.
• Resist attempts to have complaints dismissed on purely technical heirship grounds; highlight the CPA’s remedial nature and the absence of Class-based distinctions.
• Use this judgment, along with Spring Meadows, to support family-member standing in medical negligence and other consumer claims following death.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Soumya Bhattacharya v. Sudhir Kumar Thakur & Ors. fortifies a consumer-friendly interpretation of locus standi in cases where the consumer has died. By holding that a brother is within the ambit of “legal heir or representative,” rejecting a Class-I/Class-II straitjacket, recognizing relation-back of a Class-I heir’s impleadment, and discouraging dilatory objections at the threshold, the Court ensures that form does not trump substance in the pursuit of redress for alleged medical negligence.

The judgment underscores that the CPA’s remedial purpose must be given primacy: family members who step forward to vindicate a deceased consumer’s rights should be enabled to do so, with courts focusing on the merits rather than allowing procedural technicalities to stymie justice. With directions to expedite the long-pending matter and align party memos with the Supreme Court’s guidance, the Court has set a clear path for efficient and equitable adjudication in similar cases.