1. Medical Battery (Unauthorized Touching)

Meaning

Medical battery occurs when a doctor performs a medical procedure without the patient’s valid consent. The key element is intentional physical interference, even if the doctor intended to help.

Core features:

• No valid consent OR treatment beyond consent
• Intentional act (not necessarily malicious)
• Harm is not required; mere unauthorized contact is enough

Typical examples:

• Surgery on the wrong body part
• Performing a different procedure than consented
• Operating without consent in non-emergency situations

Key Case Laws on Battery

1. Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital (1914)

Facts:

A patient consented to an examination under anesthesia but explicitly refused surgery. The doctor nevertheless removed a tumor.

Judgment:

The court held that:

“Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body.”

Legal principle:

• Performing surgery without consent = battery
• Consent is fundamental to bodily autonomy

Importance:

This case is the foundation of modern consent law in medical practice.

2. Mohr v Williams (1905)

Facts:

A patient consented to surgery on her right ear. The surgeon found the left ear more diseased and operated on it instead.

Judgment:

The court held the doctor liable for battery.

Legal principle:

• Consent is procedure-specific
• Even well-intentioned deviation = battery

Importance:

Established that doctors cannot change the nature of treatment without renewed consent (except emergencies).

3. Samira Kohli v Dr. Prabha Manchanda (2008) (India)

Facts:

A patient consented to diagnostic laparoscopy and biopsy. During the procedure, doctors performed a full hysterectomy without prior consent.

Judgment (Supreme Court of India):

• Held it to be battery-like unauthorized procedure
• Doctors exceeded the scope of consent

Legal principle:

• Consent must be real, informed, and procedure-specific
• Additional major procedures require separate consent unless emergency

Importance:

One of the most important Indian cases defining informed consent boundaries.

2. Medical Negligence

Meaning

Medical negligence occurs when a doctor:

• Owes a duty of care
• Breaches the standard of care
• Causes harm to the patient

Unlike battery:

• Consent may exist, but treatment is careless or below standard
• Focus is on quality of treatment, not permission

Key Case Laws on Negligence

4. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)

Facts:

A patient underwent electroconvulsive therapy without muscle relaxants and suffered fractures.

Judgment:

The court held:

• A doctor is not negligent if acting according to a practice accepted by a responsible body of medical professionals.

Legal principle (Bolam Test):

A doctor is not negligent if:

• Their conduct is supported by a responsible medical opinion

Importance:

This became the foundational test for medical negligence globally for decades.

5. Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority (1997)

Facts:

A child died due to respiratory failure; doctor failed to attend.

Judgment:

The court refined Bolam:

• Medical opinion must also be logically defensible, not just accepted by peers.

Legal principle:

• Courts can reject medical opinion if it is unreasonable

Importance:

Introduced judicial control over medical expert testimony.

6. Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital (1985)

Facts:

A patient was not warned about a small risk of paralysis from spinal surgery.

Judgment:

Majority applied Bolam test to disclosure of risks.

Legal principle:

• Doctors decide what risks to disclose based on professional practice

Importance:

Later criticized for being too doctor-centered.

7. Chester v Afshar (2004)

Facts:

A patient was not informed of a small but serious risk of paralysis. The risk occurred after surgery.

Judgment:

Court ruled for patient despite causation difficulty.

Legal principle:

• Strong emphasis on patient autonomy
• Failure to warn can create liability even if procedure was properly performed

Importance:

Shifted law toward patient-centered informed consent.

8. Canterbury v Spence (1972) (USA)

Facts:

Patient was not informed of paralysis risk from spinal surgery.

Judgment:

Court held doctor liable.

Legal principle:

• Doctors must disclose all material risks
• Based on what a reasonable patient would want to know

Importance:

Major shift from professional standard to patient-centered disclosure.

Battery vs Negligence (Clear Distinction)

Summary (Key Idea)

• Battery = “You touched me without permission.”
• Negligence = “You treated me, but did it carelessly.”

Modern courts increasingly prefer negligence-based analysis for consent issues, except in clear cases of completely unauthorized procedures, where battery still applies strongly.