Life ends, but not always the liability

This weekend, Filipinos will flock to cemeteries to remember their departed. The law remembers them, too, for not everything is buried with the body. When a doctor accused of malpractice dies while the case is pending, does the patient’s claim die with him? Or may his heirs be made to answer?

In Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy (dead) Through LRs and Others, decided on 4 May 2026, the Supreme Court of India gave a nuanced answer: the heirs may be impleaded, but only to answer for claims against the estate.

The case dates back to 1990, when the accused doctor operated on the right eye of the complainant’s wife, resulting in a loss of vision. The complainant sued for medical negligence and was awarded compensation. The award, however, was reversed on appeal when the blindness was attributed to glaucoma.

Pending the complainant’s further appeal, the doctor died and was substituted by his widow and son as legal heirs. They argued that the case had abated under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act of 1925, which embodies the principle that a personal action dies with the person.

Counsel for the complainant countered that since the doctor’s legal heirs inherited his estate, any pecuniary liability arising from his negligence could be recovered therefrom.

The Court charted a middle course, holding that the survival of a right or cause of action depends on the facts and the remedy sought.

It explained that Section 306 extinguishes purely personal claims, such as damages for pain, suffering or loss of reputation. However, claims affecting the estate, including pecuniary losses recoverable therefrom, may survive.

Thus, the doctor’s heirs could be impleaded, with the extent of liability determined from the pleadings and evidence. The case was remanded for adjudication of negligence and surviving claims.

Significantly, the Court stressed that the claimant must first establish the deceased doctor’s negligence and identify which claims are recoverable from his estate.

In the Philippines, the claim need not die with the doctor either.

Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court allows suits for damages arising from injury to person or property to proceed against the estate’s executor or administrator. Heirs may be substituted under Section 16, Rule 3, but substitution does not automatically make them personally liable.

Under People v Bayotas (1994), reaffirmed in People v Lipata (2016), an accused’s death extinguishes civil liability arising solely from the crime, but liability based on quasi-delict may survive in a separate civil action. Under Articles 774 and 776 of the Civil Code, heirs answer only to the extent of their inheritance.

Side by side, the two legal systems reach similar ends through different routes. India begins with the extinction of personal actions, then recognizes surviving estate claims. Philippine law recognizes surviving claims while limiting recovery to the estate.

The lesson is clear: death should neither defeat legitimate claims nor impose personal liability upon innocent heirs.

For patients, a wrong need not perish with the wrongdoer. For heirs, an inheritance may arrive with a lawsuit attached.

Death ends a life, but not always a liability. Justice, properly pursued, may outlive us all.

For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.