Rajani Prakash Malik vs. Dr. Ashok T. Bhole
Court
State Commission
Year
2026
Category
Informed Consent
Compensation
Compensation awarded for failure to obtain informed consent
Background
A woman from Dombivli consulted an ophthalmic surgeon (Dr. Bhole) for a vision problem. He advised cataract surgery, assuring her it was routine and safe. Before surgery, he took her signature on a pre-printed consent form, without explaining risks, complications, or alternatives. After surgery, she developed severe pain, redness, and rapidly worsening vision. Despite repeated complaints, the doctor continued routine treatment and did not refer her early. She was eventually treated at Fortis Hospital, but the eye could not be saved. She filed a consumer complaint alleging negligence and lack of informed consent.
The Legal Question
Was the doctor negligent in surgery or post-operative care (which required expert evidence)? Did the doctor fail to obtain proper informed consent, and is a pre-printed, unsigned, non-specific consent form valid consent in the eyes of law?
The Court's Decision
The Commission held that no negligence was proven in surgery or treatment because the complainant produced no expert opinion or medical board report. However, the doctor was found guilty of deficiency in service for improper consent. The consent form was ruled inadequate and invalid because it was a pre-printed proforma, contained only the patient's signature, did not mention risks or the possibility of losing vision, and did not record any discussion. The Commission stated: 'A bare signature on a printed sheet is not the consent which the law requires.' Compensation was awarded solely for the failure to obtain informed consent.
Pre-printed consent forms with bare signatures are legally invalid. Consent must be specific, informed, and document the risks, alternatives, and actual discussion. Failure of informed consent alone is a deficiency in service.
Relevant Legal Provisions
What This Means for Your Practice
Pre-printed consent forms are NOT valid consent. A signature on a routine form does not meet legal standards. Consent must be specific, informed, and documented.
Doctors must explicitly disclose material risks, especially serious risks like loss of vision.
Consent must reflect actual discussion. The form must show what was explained, risks discussed, alternatives offered, and patient understanding.
Negligence requires expert evidence; without it, negligence in surgery cannot be presumed.
Failure of informed consent alone is a deficiency in service. Even if the surgery is performed perfectly, poor consent is enough for legal liability.
Original Judgement
Explore More Cases
Disclaimer: The case summary, legal analysis, and practical notes on this page are for educational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. The original PDF is sourced from public Indian court records. MedicoLegalAid does not claim ownership of the original judgement.