In the landmark Indian Supreme Court judgment Bolam vs Friern Hospital Management Committee (Bolam test as adopted in Indian law), a doctor is NOT negligent if:

• A The patient did not sustain any permanent harm from the treatment
• B The doctor followed a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical practitioners skilled in that particular art, even if other practitioners might take a different view ✓
• C The doctor obtained written consent from the patient before every procedure
• D The doctor obtained a second opinion before undertaking any complex procedure

Explanation

The Bolam test (1957, UK) — adopted by Indian courts including the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) — states that a doctor is not negligent if he acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion, even if a different body of opinion would have followed a different approach. The test sets the standard as that of a 'reasonable doctor' in the same specialty, not the highest possible standard. Absence of permanent harm and obtaining consent are important but do not define negligence per se; the Bolam test specifically addresses clinical decision-making.

Reference: The Essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (Narayan Reddy), 34th ed.

High-yield for: NEET PGINI-CETNExTFMGEUSMLEPLABMRCP

Written and medically reviewed by the StethoPrep medical team.