VoxJuris
Home › Acts › IPC › Chapter IV › Section 88

Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter IV: General Exceptions

Section 88: Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.

Now in the BNS section 26 (Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit)

In plain words

An act not intended to cause death is not an offence because of harm it causes, or is intended or known likely to cause, to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, if that person consented to suffer the harm or take the risk.

A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.

Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓

Official text

Nothing, which is not intented to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm.

Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.

Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.

Understanding this section

Section 88 protects acts done in good faith, with consent, for the benefit of the person harmed, even where the doer knows the act is likely to cause death, so long as death is not intended. This is the legal footing for risky surgery.

Key points

  • There is no age limit, unlike section 87, but valid consent is required.
  • Good faith requires due care and attention (section 52).
  • The act must be for the person's benefit; mere pecuniary benefit does not count (section 92 Explanation).
  • Consent to one procedure is not consent to another; a doctor cannot go beyond what was agreed except in an emergency.

Medical negligence

Sections 88 and 92 protect doctors who act in good faith. They do not protect rash or grossly negligent conduct, which is judged under section 304A and the Bolam test as adopted in Indian law.

Key Supreme Court rulings

  • Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda 2008 INSC 56

    Consent for a diagnostic procedure cannot be treated as consent for therapeutic surgery. Removing a patient's uterus and ovaries while she was unconscious, on her mother's consent, was not lawful consent; only surgery needed to save life or preserve health can proceed without the patient's own consent.

  • Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital 2010 INSC 95

    A doctor is judged by the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner, and mere deviation from normal practice is not negligence; the Court discussed sections 88 and 92 among the protections given to doctors.

Common mistakes

  • Treating a signed consent form as covering any procedure the doctor later thinks fit.
  • Confusing section 88 protection with immunity from negligence claims.

Read with: Section 92 IPC, Section 304A IPC, Section 26 BNS

Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.

Supreme Court judgments citing the section 88