The Supreme Court docket of India on Monday (April 6) quashed prison proceedings towards a paediatric surgeon who had carried out an orchidectomy (elimination of the testicle) on a 1.5-year-old little one, amid allegations by the daddy that no consent had been given for the process.
A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard the matter during which the kid’s father contended that he had consented solely to orchidopexy, a process to reposition an undescended testicle, however the surgeon proceeded to carry out an orchidectomy as an alternative, allegedly with out his approval, contending that the consent type was interpolated to incorporate the permission to carry out an orchidectomy.
Aggrieved by the Excessive Court docket’s determination refusing to quash the case, the surgeon appealed to the Supreme Court docket, contending that the consent type was not interpolated, nor was orchidectomy added to the shape after filling out the consent type. The surgeon defended the operation, saying that the consent type contained an possibility both to carry out orchidopexy/orchidectomy. Additionally, his determination to proceed with orchidectomy was supported by the Medical Board’s opinion, he added.
Discovering pressure within the Appellant-surgeon’s competition, the judgment authored by Justice Misra didn’t fault the Appellant’s determination to proceed with orchidectomy, saying {that a} surgeon working on a affected person is a finest decide to undertake the very best surgical procedures, notably when it’s backed by medical board’s opinion, which supported the Orchidectomy as one of many alternate options to obviate possibilities of malignancy in future.
“…within the opinion of the Medical Board the process adopted was acceptable. Furthermore, the working surgeon is the very best decide of which one of many two procedures is to be adopted.”, the courtroom stated.
“Within the prompt case, no malice is attributed to the physician and there’s no dispute that the consent type was executed for enterprise a medical process. Additional, the medical opinion is to the impact that the process adopted by the physician was one of many alternate options acknowledged to fulfill such a medical exigency. Little question, Medical Board’s opinion signifies that such process ought to be carried out after acquiring consent, however there’s nothing to point that the consent type already obtained was not so as or that no consent was obtained. Apart from, the consent letter has been introduced on report as Annexure P-2. A perusal thereof would point out that within the column the place the character of proposed surgical procedure is to be talked about, each kinds of surgical procedure i.e., Orchidopexy and Orchiectomy are talked about by placing a slash (/), which signifies that the opposite surgical procedure, particularly, Orchidectomy, was one of many choices obtainable.”, the courtroom added.
Resultantly, the enchantment was allowed, and the pending proceedings had been quashed.
Trigger Title: DR. S. BALAGOPAL VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 331
Click on right here to obtain judgment
Look:
For Petitioner(s) Mr Okay. Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR Mr. Deva Vrat Anand, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. V Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. D.kumanan, AOR Ms. Deepa S, Adv. Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Adv. Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv. Respondent-in-person
 quashed criminal proceedings against a paediatric surgeon who had performed an orchidectomy (removal of the testicle) on a 1.5-year-old child, amid...){kind=link}