## Facts

- Mrs. Chatterton underwent surgery to relieve chronic pain caused by a hernia; the procedure involved severing nerves (neuroctomy).
- Following the surgery, Mrs. Chatterton experienced permanent numbness and loss of sensation in the affected area.
- She alleged she had not been adequately informed about the risk of permanent numbness and argued that her consent to the procedure was invalid due to a lack of informed understanding.
- The action focused on whether the information provided prior to the procedure sufficed to constitute valid consent under law.

## Issues

1. Whether a patient’s consent to medical treatment is valid when they lack full information about all the risks of the procedure.
2. Whether the absence of specific disclosure regarding certain risks renders the consent invalid, potentially giving rise to liability in battery or negligence.
3. Whether claims regarding inadequate disclosure of risks in medical treatment should be framed as battery or negligence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that Mrs. Chatterton’s consent was valid, despite her claim of inadequate disclosure about all possible risks.
- The court found she was informed about the nature and purpose of the surgical procedure, and the level of information provided matched what a reasonable medical practitioner would disclose.
- The absence of detailed information about every possible risk did not, in itself, invalidate her consent.
- The court clarified that failures in disclosure typically constitute negligence, not battery, where the patient understands the nature and purpose of the procedure.

## Legal Principles

- Valid consent in medical treatment requires the patient to have a voluntary and informed understanding of the nature and purpose of the procedure, as well as its material risks.
- Consent is not vitiated simply because the patient was not informed of every possible risk; material risks must be disclosed in accordance with the standards of a responsible body of medical opinion.
- Claims based on inadequate disclosure of risks are to be pleaded in negligence (subject to breach of duty and causation), not as battery, unless the patient was misled or coerced.
- The approach balances the requirement for informed decision-making with the practical realities of medical communication and patient comprehension.

## Conclusion

Chatterton v Gerson established that a patient's consent to medical treatment is valid if they are informed of the procedure’s nature and purpose, and that inadequate disclosure of specific risks generally gives rise to a claim in negligence rather than battery, cementing the importance of informed patient understanding in English medical law.


Chatterton v Gerson [1981] QB 432 (CA)