|
The IUP Journal of Law Review :
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Description |
 |
|
The patient is not just a group of symptoms, damaged organs and altered emotions.
The patient is a human being, searching for relief, help and trust.1 In India, a majority
of patients cannot comprehend medical terms, concepts, and treatment procedures.
Whatever the doctor decides as being in their interest is usually unquestioningly
accepted. They are passive, ignorant and uninvolved in treatment procedure, as
observed by the Supreme Court in Samira Kohli vs. Dr. Prabha Manchanda and Anr2
in 2008. This decision settled the law on medical consent in India in these terms:
The nature and extent of information to be furnished by the doctor to the
patient to secure the consent need not be of the stringent and high degree
mentioned in Canterbury but should be of the extent which is accepted as
normal and proper by a body of medical men skilled and experienced in the
particular field. It will depend upon the physical and mental condition of the
patient, the nature of treatment, and the risk and consequences attached to
the treatment.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|