Role of Informed Consent in India Past, Present and Future Trends
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48165/Keywords:
Consent, Real Consent, Informed Consent, Oral Consent, Deficiency of ServiceAbstract
There is a need to keep the cost of treatment within affordable limits. Bringing in the American concepts and standards of treatment procedures and disclosure of risks, consequences and choices will inevitably bring in higher cost-structure of treatment. Patients in India cannot afford them. People in India still have great regard and respect for Doctors. The Members of medical profession have also, by and large, shown care and concern for the patients. There is an atmosphere of trust and implicit faith in the advice given by the Doctor. Apex Court observed that “What choice do these poor patients have? Any treatment of whatever degree is a boon or a favour, for them. The stark reality is that for a vast majority in the country, the concepts of informed consent or any form of consent, and choice in treatment, have no meaning or relevance.” This paper deals with the applicability of concept of ‘informed consent’ in past, present and future scenario in India, based on the critical review of recent decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
Downloads
References
Canterbury vs. Spence - 1972 [464] Federal Reporter 2d. 772. 2. Schoendorff vs. Society of New York Hospital - (1914) 211 NY 125. 3. Re: F. 1989(2) All ER 545.
Principles of Medical Law (published by Oxford University Press, Second Edition, edited by Andrew Grubb, Para 3.04, Page 133) 5. Murray vs. Mc Murchy - 1949 (2) DLR 442
Marshell vs. Curry - 1933 (3) DLR 260.
Samira Kohli vs. Dr. Prabha Manchanda & Anr., Case No.: Appeal (civil) 1949 of 2004, decided on 16/01/2008.
The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Ethics & Etiquettes) Regulations-2002.
Bowater vs. Rowley Regis Corporation - [1944] 1 KB 476. 10. Salgo vs. Leland Stanford [154 Cal. App. 2d.560 (1957)]. 11. Bolam vs. Friern Hospital Management Committee - [1957] 2 All.E.R. 118.
Hunter vs. Hanley (1955 SC 200)]
Sidaway vs. Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors & Ors. [1985] 1 All ER 643].
Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa vs. State of Maharastra - 1996 (2) SCC 634.
Vinitha Ashok vs. Lakshmi Hospital - 2001 (8) SCC 731. 16. Indian Medical Association vs. V. P. Shantha - 1995 (6) SCC 651. 17. Reibl vs. Hughes (1980) 114 DLR (3d.) 1.
Rogers vs. Whittaker - 1992 (109) ALR 625.
Bolitho vs. City and Hackney HA- 1998 1 AC 232.
Pearce vs. United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust 1998 (48) BMLR 118.
Smt. Saroj Chandhoke vs. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital; NCDR Commission decision dated July 9, 2007in Original Petition No. 61 of 1996.
Dr. Shailesh Shah vs. Aphraim Jayanand Rathod First Appeal No. 597 OF 1995 NCDRC, from the order dated 8.11.1995 in complaint No.31/94 State Commission Gujarat. Decided on May 8, 2003
Dr.Mukesh Yadav. Age of Consent in Medical Profession: A Food for Thought. J Indian Acad Forensic Med, 2007; Vol. No.29; Issue No.2: 80-85, Available at: http://medind.nic.in/jal/t07/i2/jalt07i2p80.pdf
Dr.Mukesh Yadav. Review Article: Role of Informed Consent. J Indian Acad Forensic Med, 2008 Vol. No.30; Issue No.3: 84-91, Available at: http://medind.nic.in/jal/t08/i2/jalt08i2p84.pdf
Kali Ann Trahanas. How the Undue Burden Standard is Eroding Informed Consent. Seton Hall Circuit Review. 2013, Vol. 10: 231- 269, Available at: http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1128&context
=circuit_review
