The doctor failed to explain possible consequences of an operation both on a first operation, and on a subsequent corrective operation.
Held: The failure to explain the general nature of an operation negatived the patient’s consent. The doctor can be held negligent if the patient demonstrates that he would not have accepted an unexplained risk. The doctor was liable in negligence only if the general nature of the operation was not explained.
Bristow J
[1981] QB 432, [1980] 3 WLR 1003, [1981] CLY 2648
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Afshar v Chester CA 27-May-2002
The surgeon carried out the operation successfully, but the claimant suffered consequential post operative damage. He had not been warned of the risk, and sought damages.
Held: Failure to warn of a risk did not vitiate consent, and any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Professional Negligence
Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.182965