Abstract

This research explores how informed consent can increase criminal accountability in hazardous surgical procedures in India, and outlines the preventive and litigation duties of lawyers. Additionally, By using a theoretical doctrinal approach, the paper examines constitutional guarantees under Article 21, penal thresholds (including IPC Section 304A now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 104), procedural protections like CrPC Section 438 and inherent powers under Section 484/BNSS equivalents, regulatory responsibilities under the National Medical Commission Act and Code of Medical Ethics, evidentiary reforms under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and consumer-law remedies under these regulations. It demonstrates that clinical uncertainty in complex surgeries becomes a legal matter when disclosure, capacity assessment, and contemporaneous documentation are inadequate. Furthermore, it indicates that most unfavorable outcomes are civil or regulatory matters unless evidence indicates gross or reckless departure warranting criminal sanction. Specifically, the paper presents advocates who believe that such measures as institutionalised consent SOPs, forensic-grade record preservation, early procedural interventions (anticipatory bail and quelling proceedings), calibrated pre-prosecution medical triage, and mediation/ADR pathways can help reduce avoidable criminalisation. By emphasizing statutory literacy and practical templates, the study seeks to preserve patient autonomy while maintaining a legal framework that allows for accountable, evidence-based clinical judgment without excessive fear of punishment.

Keywords