Informed Consent in Neonatal Surgery: Legal Perspective
Keywords:
Informed Consent, Neonatal Surgery, Medical Negligence, Criminal Liability, Parental ConsentAbstract
Informed consent is a foundational element of medical ethics and legal practice, signifying respect for patient autonomy and protecting healthcare providers from liability. However, in neonatal surgery, where the patient lacks decision-making capacity, consent must be obtained from parents or guardians. This dynamic presents complex legal challenges, particularly when risks are inadequately disclosed or consent is improperly documented. In the Indian context, where medical negligence can result in both civil and criminal liability, failure to obtain proper consent may lead to serious legal consequences under the Bharat Nyaya Sanhitha section 105 and 106 for causing death by negligence.
This paper critically analyses the legal framework governing informed consent in neonatal surgeries in India, including constitutional provisions, statutory mandates, and guidelines issued by medical regulatory bodies. It also examines key judicial precedents such as Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, Dr. Kunal Saha v. AMRI Hospital, and relevant National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) rulings. The paper highlights case studies where lack of adequate consent led to disputes, with a focus on whether such failures constituted civil negligence or criminal culpability. The comparison has been made between India, Britain and United states on Legal aspects of Informed Consent.
Findings suggest that Indian courts are cautious in criminalizing medical professionals and require a threshold of “gross negligence” to sustain charges under criminal law. The paper also explores instances where parental refusal of treatment was overridden under the parens patriae doctrine. The study concludes with practical recommendations for surgeons and hospitals, such as structured consent protocols and ethics committee reviews, to enhance legal compliance and patient safety. Ensuring transparent, informed, and well-documented parental consent in neonatal surgeries is not only a legal imperative but a safeguard against avoidable litigation and ethical transgressions
Downloads
Metrics
References
Indian Medical Council. Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. Gazette of India, Part III, Sec. 4. 2002 Jun 6.
India. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023, §§ 105–106.
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. New Delhi: Govt. of India; 2023. p. 23–4.
India. Consumer Protection Act, No. 35 of 2023. Acts of Parliament; 2023.
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 (India).
AMRI Hospital v. Dr. Kunal Saha, (2014) 1 SCC 384 (India).
Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board, [2015] UKSC 11, [2015] 1 AC 1430 (UK).
Darnley v. Croydon Health Services NHS Trust, [2018] UKSC 50, [2019] AC 831 (UK).
Reynolds v. North Bristol NHS Trust, [2008] EWHC 1902 (QB) (Eng).
Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (DC Cir. 1972).
Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (DC Cir. 1972).
Cobbs v. Grant, 502 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1972).
Arato v. Avedon, 858 P.2d 598 (Cal. 1993).
Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, (2009) 3 SCC 1 (India).
Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda & Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 1 (India).
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454 (India).
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37 (India).
Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre v. Asha Jaiswal, (2021) 7 SCC 704 (India).
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 (India).
Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2004) 6 SCC 422 (India).
Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, (2009) 3 SCC 1 (India).
V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital, (2010) 5 SCC 513 (India).
India. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023, §§105–106.
United Kingdom. Offences Against the Person Act 1861, c. 100, §5.
American Law Institute. Model Penal Code §2.02(2)(d). 2021.
Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board, [2015] UKSC 11, [2015] 1 AC 1430 (UK).
Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, (2009) 3 SCC 1 (India).
[Patient's Guardian] v. Fortis Memorial Research Institute, First Appeal No. 264 of 2017, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (India), 2017 Nov 17.
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 (India).
People v. Dlugash, 341 NE2d 501 (NY 1975).
.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
