Shambhu Nath Thakur, an engineer who graduated from BITS Pilani, worked as a general manager at Texmaco Ltd. He suffered from hypertension and later developed multiple black patches on his skin that started bleeding. He was advised to undergo various tests and investigations, which revealed that his platelet count was extremely low. He was rushed to Apollo Gleneagles Hospital in Kolkata, but the hospital delayed admission until an advance payment was made. He was not given any treatment or platelet transfusion. He died on April 9, 2010.
His elder brother, Sudhir Kumar Thakur, filed a consumer complaint against the hospital and Dr Soumya Bhattacharya (opposite parties). He described himself as a trustee managing Shambhu’s estate and looking after his widow and children. The deceased’s mother also filed an application to join the proceedings as a co-complainant. However, she passed away during the pendency of the proceedings.
The opposite parties questioned Sudhir’s right to file the complaint, arguing that the legal heirs — the widow and children — ought to have filed it. The National Commission directed that the widow and children be impleaded as parties to the complaint, but allowed the brother to continue as the complainant.
The opposite parties then filed a review petition, contending that the Hindu Succession Act provides for the devolution of the estate upon legal heirs of the first degree, and only in the absence of such heirs would the right pass on to the brother, who is a second-degree legal heir. They argued that since the elder brother was not a legal heir of the first degree, the complaint should be dismissed.
When the review petition was also dismissed, Dr Bhattacharya challenged the order in a petition before the Delhi High Court. In its order dated September 18, 2025, Justice Manoj Jain observed that the Consumer Protection Act defined a complainant and provided that in case of the death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative would be entitled to file a complaint. In view of this provision, the court concluded that when a consumer is no longer alive, the complaint can be instituted and pursued by his legal heir or representative.
The opposite parties argued that when the widow and children are alive, they alone are entitled to pursue the complaint, as they fall within the category of Class-I legal heirs under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. The Delhi High Court observed that, in view of the direction to have the widow and children as parties to the complaint, the issue of the brother having filed it had become irrelevant. The court further elaborated that even if the widow and children did not join, the brother would still be entitled to continue with the proceedings, as the Consumer Protection Act did not distinguish between Class-I and Class-II legal heirs. The court emphasised that the Act must be construed liberally and it permits a remote-degree legal heir or any family member to file a complaint, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Spring Meadows Hospital & Ors vs Harjol Ahluwalia.
The writer is a consumer activist
 "CCPA, Central Consumer Protection Authority, ORDER, JUSTICE, COURT ORDER")
