Hi, help us enhance your experience
Hi, help us enhance your experience
Hi, help us enhance your experience
613 Views
Dr KK Aggarwal and Ira Gupta 05 January 2018
Samira Kohli vs Dr. Prabha Manchanda and Anr, SCI, Civil Appeal No. 1949 of 2004, 16.01.2008
“The ‘adequate information’ to be furnished by the doctor (or a member of his team) who treats the patient, should enable the patient to make a balanced judgment as to whether he should submit to the particular treatment or not. This means that the doctor should disclose (a) the nature and procedure of the treatment and its purpose, benefits, and effect; (b) alternatives, if any, available; (c) an outline of the substantial risks; and (d) adverse consequences of refusing treatment. But there is no need to explain remote or theoretical risks involved, which may frighten or confuse a patient and result in refusal of consent for the necessary treatment. Similarly, there is no need to explain the remote or theoretical risks of refusal to take treatment, which may persuade a patient to undergo a fanciful or unnecessary treatment...”
{{Article_Title}}
{{Article_Author}}
{{Article_Title}}
{{Article_Author}}
{{Article_Title}}..
High 1-hour Plasma Glucose: Early Indicator of Type 2 Diabetes Risk..
Maintaining Liver Health to Optimize Glycemic Outcomes in Early Type 2.....
Antibiotic Prescribing Practices for Pediatric Acute Otitis Media..
Hidden Hazard of Indoor Pollution in COPD..
Recognizing Pitfalls of Point-of-Care Lung Ultrasound..