Consumer Protection Act Must Be Interpreted Liberally; Complaint By Brother Of Deceased Maintainable: Delhi High Court

“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. He is, definitely, not a stranger or a rank-outsider.” With this sharp judicial observation, the Delhi High Court Today, settled a long-standing dispute over the locus standi of a brother to file a consumer complaint arising out of alleged medical negligence that led to his sibling’s death.

The judgment marks a crucial precedent where the High Court held that “legal heir” and “representative” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot be construed in a rigid or restricted manner, especially when the complaint is filed in the interest of the deceased’s immediate family.

“Welfare Legislation Demands Liberal Interpretation”: Court Rebukes Technical Objections Meant to Delay Justice

Justice Manoj Jain of the Delhi High Court delivered a powerful ruling in a case questioning the maintainability of a consumer complaint filed by the brother of a deceased patient who died due to alleged medical negligence at Apollo Gleneagles Hospital, Kolkata.

The central legal issue revolved around whether a brother, who is not a Class-I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, could institute and pursue a complaint under Section 2(1)(b)(v) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, when the deceased’s widow and children were alive but unserved.

The Court held that "the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, being a welfare legislation, need to be construed in a liberal manner" and emphatically declared that “the Act does not make any distinction between a Class-I or Class-II heir. It only refers to the term ‘legal heir’.”

"Complainant Is Not a Rank Outsider – He Has Stepped in Where Others Were Unreachable"

The matter originated from a consumer complaint filed by Dr. Sudhir Kumar Thakur, brother of Shambhu Nath Thakur, a senior engineer who was admitted to Apollo Hospital in 2010 with dangerously low platelet count. The complaint alleged that the hospital delayed treatment while demanding advance payment, leading to the patient’s death within two days.

The brother, alleging medical negligence, initiated proceedings before the NCDRC, stating that he was managing the estate and welfare of the deceased’s widow and daughters. The maintainability of his complaint was repeatedly challenged by one of the doctors, Dr. Soumya Bhattacharya, who claimed that only the widow and children, being Class-I heirs, could legally file the complaint.

The Court, however, dismantled this technical objection, noting, “Since the mother had already been impleaded as co-petitioner in the year 2016, the contention raised in the present petition seems to be absolutely fallacious.”

It further added, “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.”

“Act of Caretaker, Not a Claimant”: Court Notes Complainant's Affidavit Renouncing Any Compensation for Himself

The Court was also mindful of the complainant’s affidavit dated 20.02.2019, where he made a categorical declaration that he would not claim any compensation for himself, and any compensation awarded should go solely to the deceased’s widow, daughters, and mother.

Observing this, the Court remarked, “Such conduct only reinforces the bonafides of the complainant. He has not approached the forum for personal gain but to seek justice for his brother’s family.”

Even the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 3876/2019, had earlier declined to interfere with NCDRC’s direction to allow the heirs to be impleaded and observed that in their absence, the opposite party could raise the issue of locus again. The High Court held that since the widow and daughters were untraceable despite best efforts, the “reopening of this issue now is nothing more than a delaying tactic.”

“No Legal Infirmity in Continuation of Complaint by Brother”: HC Directs Expeditious Disposal by NCDRC

In conclusion, the Court emphasized that "legal heir" and "representative" are not defined in the Act, and in the context of a welfare statute, should be interpreted to include close relatives acting in fiduciary interest, especially when they are the only ones able and willing to pursue legal remedy.

The Court ultimately held, “This Court does not find any merit in the present petition. Same is accordingly dismissed.”

Further, it directed the NCDRC to expedite the final adjudication of the original complaint, stating, “The matter has delayed considerably... the complaint is already at the stage of final arguments.”

Date of Decision: 18 September 2025