From Bolam to Montgomery: Is India Ready for a Patient-Centered Consent Standard?

The law of informed consent in India has moved steadily from medical paternalism toward patient autonomy, but the transition remains incomplete. This paper examines whether Indian law is ready to adopt a fully patient-centered consent standard in the mould of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015), rather than continuing to rely on the professional-deference logic associated with Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957). The paper argues that the Indian Supreme Court’s decision in Samira Kohli v Dr Prabha Manchanda (2008) already marked a substantial break from Bolam by insisting on real, specific, and informed consent, yet Indian doctrine still falls short of Montgomery because it has not fully adopted the reasonable-patient test for disclosure of material risks and reasonable alternatives. Through a doctrinal analysis of Indian and comparative case law, statutory norms, and ethical principles, the paper contends that the patient-centered standard is both normatively desirable and doctrinally compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, India’s readiness depends on institutional changes in medical education, record-keeping, and adjudicatory practice. The paper concludes that India should formally move toward a Montgomery-style disclosure rule, while preserving limited emergency exceptions and ensuring that the standard is operationalised through clear legislative and professional guidance.