## Professional Negligence in Informed Consent: Causation and Damages **Key Point:** In cases of negligent non-disclosure, the law distinguishes between *breach of duty* (failure to disclose) and *causation* (whether disclosure would have prevented harm). Mere materialization of an undisclosed risk does NOT automatically entitle the patient to damages unless causation is proven. ### The Four Elements of Professional Negligence ```mermaid flowchart TD A[Professional Negligence Claim]:::outcome --> B[1. Duty of Care]:::action A --> C[2. Breach of Duty]:::action A --> D[3. Causation]:::action A --> E[4. Quantifiable Damage]:::action B --> F[Doctor-patient relationship exists]:::outcome C --> G[Failure to meet standard of care]:::outcome D --> H[Breach caused the harm]:::outcome E --> I[Injury/loss proven]:::outcome H --> J{Would disclosure have changed patient decision?}:::decision J -->|Yes| K[Causation established]:::action J -->|No| L[No causation - no damages]:::urgent ``` ### Analysis of Each Option | Option | Correct? | Reasoning | |--------|----------|----------| | **Breach of duty via non-disclosure** | ✓ YES | Failure to disclose material risks violates the standard of care | | **Damages despite non-causation** | ✗ NO | Patient cannot claim damages merely because risk materialized; must prove disclosure would have changed decision | | **Negligence via IMC standard** | ✓ YES | Breach is established when disclosure standard required by IMC regulations is not met | | **Causation from risk materialization** | ✓ YES | If the undisclosed risk occurs AND patient proves they would not have consented with disclosure, causation is satisfied | **High-Yield:** The landmark principle in informed consent negligence is: **Breach ≠ Causation**. A doctor may breach the duty to disclose, but unless the patient proves they would have refused the procedure had they been informed, no damages are awarded. This is called the "but-for" test: "but for" the non-disclosure, would the patient have refused? **Clinical Pearl:** In *Bolam v. Friern Hospital* (adopted in India), the court held that even if a doctor fails to disclose a risk, if the patient cannot show they would have refused treatment with proper disclosure, the negligence claim fails on causation grounds. **Warning:** Option 1 is a trap. Many candidates confuse "the risk happened" with "the patient is entitled to damages." The mere occurrence of an undisclosed risk does NOT establish causation. The patient must prove: "Had I known of this risk, I would have refused the procedure." ### Why Option 1 is the Answer Option 1 states: "The patient can claim damages even if the stroke would have occurred despite proper disclosure, because the risk materialized." This is INCORRECT. Causation requires a causal link between the breach (non-disclosure) and the decision to undergo the procedure. If the patient cannot prove they would have refused with disclosure, there is no causation, and hence no damages. Materialization of the risk alone is insufficient.
Sign up free to access AI-powered MCQ practice with detailed explanations and adaptive learning.