A surgeon performs a hysterectomy on a woman who had provided written informed consent for myomectomy only. The uterus was found to be infected intraoperatively, which the surgeon judged to warrant hysterectomy. In Indian law, this situation most accurately represents:
- A No liability, as the surgeon acted in the best medical interest of the patient (doctrine of necessity)
- B Negligence only, as the standard of care was met by performing the more definitive procedure
- C Battery (assault), as the procedure exceeded the scope of consent; necessity doctrine requires life-threatening emergency, not mere surgical convenience ✓
- D No liability under Consumer Protection Act as medical services are exempt when professional judgement is exercised intraoperatively
Explanation
Informed consent is specific to the procedure agreed upon. Performing a different procedure (hysterectomy) beyond the scope of consent for myomectomy constitutes battery (unlawful touching) regardless of clinical benefit, unless the situation was a true life-threatening emergency where obtaining consent was impossible. Intraoperative infection causing clinical judgement to favour hysterectomy does not meet the threshold for the necessity doctrine (which requires immediate threat to life). The patient's autonomy requires her consent for any elective extension. This has been upheld in Indian courts. Medical services are covered under the Consumer Protection Act (Poonam Verma, Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa cases).
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.