A patient’s consent must be informed in order to be valid. A lack of consent may give rise to a clinical negligence claim or, if physical contact is involved, lack of consent may be a battery giving rise to civil or criminal proceedings. A recent case involving an obstetrician highlights that a lack of informed consent, if sufficiently serious, may result in fitness to practise proceedings even if the patient’s treatment was not negligent.
In Thampi v General Medical Council [2026] EWHC 1036 (Admin), Dr Thampi had treated Patient A, who was in labour. Patient A subsequently alleged that Dr Thampi had given her insufficient information about her care. In particular, it was said that Dr Thampi had used Patient A’s fear and the fear of harm to her unborn baby to coerce consent for an instrumental delivery. It was also said that Dr Thampi had been unprofessional towards and dismissive of Patient A who had made it clear that she did not want a forceps delivery but felt under pressure to do so.
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) considered that, despite the information and explanations given by Dr Thampi to Patient A, she had not acted on or taken into account Patient A’s views that she did not want an instrumental delivery. The Tribunal determined that the sum effect of this was that Patient A was ultimately forced down the path and thus pressurised into, having to reluctantly accept, the use of forceps as the only route to deliver her baby. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal found that Dr Thampi had failed to obtain informed consent.
The MPT then considered whether Dr Thampi’s fitness to practise was currently impaired by reason of her misconduct. Although the panel recognised the absence of clinical negligence and the isolated and confined nature of the incident, nonetheless it considered Dr Thampi’s failings to be serious
The failure to obtain informed consent was serious and required a finding of impairment to mark the misconduct and necessary to maintain public confidence in the profession, and to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of the profession.
The judge (Andrew Kinnier KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) said that
“the clear gravamen of the misconduct was Dr Thampi’s failure to obtain informed consent and to communicate appropriately with Patient A. … the nature and seriousness of the two established failings warranted a finding of impairment on the grounds of public confidence and standards.”