Doctrine of informed consent requires disclosure of material risks. The modern legal standard applied in India (as per Samira Kohli v Dr. Prabha Manchanda, 2008) for determining what risks must be disclosed is:
- A Bolam test — what a responsible body of medical practitioners would disclose
- B Prudent patient (reasonable patient) standard — what material risks a reasonable patient in that situation would want to know ✓
- C Professional standard exclusively — doctors decide what to disclose
- D Absolute disclosure — every possible risk regardless of probability must be disclosed
Explanation
In Samira Kohli v Dr. Prabha Manchanda (2008), the Supreme Court of India moved away from the pure Bolam standard for consent and established the 'reasonable/prudent patient standard': a doctor must disclose to a patient all risks and alternatives that a reasonable patient in that situation would consider material to the decision to consent or refuse. Material risks include those with significant probability or those with serious consequences even if rare. The Bolam test (A) asks what a responsible body of medical professionals would do — this is the standard for negligence in treatment decisions, not consent in India post-Samira Kohli. Absolute disclosure (D) is not required as it would overwhelm patients with unlikely possibilities.
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.