The Supreme Court on Monday, April 6, quashed criminal proceedings against a paediatric surgeon who performed an orchidectomy on a one-and-a-half-year-old child. The child’s father had alleged that he never consented to that procedure.
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard the matter.
Father’s Allegations
The father argued that he had consented only to orchidopexy. That procedure repositions an undescended testicle. According to him, the surgeon instead performed an orchidectomy without his approval.
He also alleged that someone later interpolated the consent form to add permission for orchidectomy.
Surgeon’s Defence
The surgeon challenged the High Court’s refusal to quash the case and moved the Supreme Court. He denied that anyone had interpolated the consent form. He also denied that anyone inserted orchidectomy after filling the form.
He argued that the form itself mentioned both procedures, orchidopexy and orchidectomy, as available options. He further submitted that the Medical Board’s opinion supported the decision to proceed with orchidectomy.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court accepted the appellant-surgeon’s case. In a judgment authored by Justice Misra, the Court held that the doctor could not be faulted for choosing orchidectomy.
The Bench observed that a surgeon who operates on a patient is the best judge of which procedure to adopt. It added that the Medical Board had also treated orchidectomy as one of the recognised alternatives to reduce the risk of future malignancy.
“…in the opinion of the Medical Board the procedure adopted was appropriate. Moreover, the operating surgeon is the best judge of which one of the two procedures is to be adopted.”, the Court said.
Consent Form And Medical Opinion
The Bench noted that the father had not attributed any malice to the doctor. It also noted that both sides accepted that the father had executed a consent form for a medical procedure.
The Court further said that the medical opinion on record treated the adopted procedure as one of the recognised alternatives for the medical exigency.
It also observed that the Medical Board had indicated that doctors should carry out such a procedure after obtaining consent. Even so, the Court found nothing on record to show that the existing consent form was defective or that the doctor had taken no consent at all.
The Bench also referred to the consent letter on record as Annexure P-2. It said the column describing the proposed surgery mentioned both Orchidopexy and Orchiectomy with a slash (/). According to the Court, that showed orchidectomy was one of the available options.
The Court said no malice was attributed to the doctor. It also noted that there was no dispute that the consent form had been executed for undertaking a medical procedure.
According to the Court, the Medical Board’s opinion showed that the adopted procedure was one of the recognised alternatives for such a medical exigency. The Court also noted that the Board had said doctors should perform such a procedure after obtaining consent.
However, the Bench found nothing on record to show that the consent form already obtained was defective. It also found nothing to show that no consent had been obtained.
Referring again to Annexure P-2, the Court said the column on the proposed surgery mentioned both Orchidopexy and Orchiectomy with a slash (/). It said this showed that orchidectomy was one of the available options.
Final Order
On these findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the pending proceedings.
Cause Title: DR. S. BALAGOPAL VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
Citation: 2026 INSC 331
Also read: Arvind Kejriwal Recusal Plea in Delhi HC
