In Samira Kohli vs Dr. Prabha Manchanda and Anr, SCI, Civil Appeal No. 1949 of 2004, 16.01.2008, the Supreme Court preferred ‘real consent’ followed in the UK over informed consent followed in America and summarized the principles relating to consent as follows:

1. A doctor has to seek and secure the consent of the patient before commencing a ‘treatment’ (the term ‘treatment’ includes surgery also). The consent so obtained should be real and valid, which means that: the patient should have the capacity and competence to consent; his consent should be voluntary; and his consent should be on the basis of adequate information concerning the nature of the treatment procedure, so that he knows what he is consenting to.
2. 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

1. the nature and procedure of the treatment and its purpose, benefits, and effect;
2. alternatives, if any, available;
3. an outline of the substantial risks; and
4. 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. A balance should be achieved between the need for disclosing necessary and adequate information and at the same time avoid the possibility of the patient being deterred from agreeing to a necessary treatment or offering to undergo an unnecessary treatment.”