As per Supreme Court of India, “The nature and extent of information to be furnished by the doctor to the patient to secure the consent need not be of the stringent and high-degree mentioned in Canterbury (informed consent) but should be of the extent which is accepted as normal and proper by a body of medical men skilled and experienced in the particular field. It will depend upon the physical and mental condition of the patient, the nature of treatment, and the risk and consequences attached to the treatment.”

“33. We may note here that courts in Canada and Australia have moved towards Canterbury standard of disclosure and informed consent - vide Reibl v. Hughes (1980) 114 DLR (3d.) 1 decided by the Canadian Supreme Court and Rogers v. Whittaker - 1992 (109) ALR 625 decided by the High Court of Australia. Even in England there is a tendency to make the doctors duty to inform more stringent than Bolam’s test adopted in Sidaway. Lord Scarmans minority view in Sidaway favouring Canterbury, in course of time, may ultimately become the law in England. A beginning has been made in Bolitho v. City and Hackney HA - 1998 1 AC 232 and Pearce v. United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust 1998 (48) BMLR 118. We have however, consciously preferred the ‘real consent’ concept evolved in Bolam and Sidaway in preference to the ‘reasonably prudent patient test’ in Canterbury, having regard to the ground realities in medical and health-care in India. But if medical practitioners and private hospitals become more and more commercialized, and if there is a corresponding increase in the awareness of patient’s rights among the public, inevitably, a day may come when we may have to move towards Canterbury. But not for the present.” Samira Kohli vs. Dr. Prabha Manchanda and Ors. I (2008) CPJ 56 (SC).