Informed consent has long been a cornerstone of ethical medical practice, but recent legal developments are redefining what is considered adequate, especially in the context of patient autonomy and medico-legal accountability. Clinicians must now go beyond procedural explanations and ensure that consent is not only obtained but also clearly documented, patient-specific, and legally robust. The landmark Supreme Court judgment in Samira Kohli vs. Dr.
Prabha Manchanda (2008) firmly established that consent must be specific, informed, and voluntary. Generic or pre-printed consent forms that do not clearly outline the procedure, its risks, and alternatives are increasingly viewed as insufficient in court. Moreover, consent for one procedure does not imply permission for another, even if both are clinically justified. Recent case law and medico-legal audits have placed emphasis on language…
