The doctor-patient bond in Nigeria is fundamentally one of trust. Patients, often lacking the medical expertise or confidence to challenge decisions, surrender their wellbeing to healthcare providers. A doctor’s primary obligation is to explicitly inform patients of significant risks linked to any medical procedure. If this duty is neglected and harm results, personal injury law offers a means of seeking compensation from such a doctor or hospital.
However, Nigerian patients encounter considerable legal and practical hurdles when doctors fail to provide adequate risk warnings.
Central to this issue is the principle of informed consent. Consent goes beyond a patient simply signing a document or verbally agreeing to treatment. Informed consent necessitates that the physician provides a comprehensive explanation of the procedure’s specifics, its potential advantages, the alternative options, and the associated material risks. A risk is material if a reasonable patient in the claimant’s position would likely consider it significant when deciding whether to proceed. Where a patient is not warned, any consent obtained may be legally defective. This means that if a patient is not properly informed, any consent they give may not be legal.
Nigerian jurisprudence acknowledges this principle. Many cases have broadly addressed medical negligence where they unequivocally established the duty element necessary to establish liability and this duty extends beyond clinical proficiency to encompass the provision of sufficient risk disclosure.
In Nigerian personal injury law, establishing negligence necessitates demonstrating four key components, namely duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damage. These elements are directly applicable when a physician neglects to provide adequate risk warnings. The duty of care is automatically established upon the commencement of treatment. Breach is determined by the physician’s failure to disclose material risks that a reasonably skilled practitioner would have disclosed. Negligence is not predicated on the mere occurrence of a complication, but rather on the patient’s deprivation of the information necessary for an informed decision.
Also Read:
- Peter Obi and the cross of a Nation, by Valentine Obienyem
- First Lady flags off 2026 planting season in Niger
- David Ogbueli and unseen architecture of global transformation, by Blaise Udunze
- 2027: Wike’s ally joins presidential race, picks PDP forms
- 2027: Obi nears defining political decision after high-level talks — Obidients
This objective standard was further clarified in Ojo v Gharoro, wherein the Supreme Court determined that medical negligence is evaluated based on the actions a reasonably skilled medical practitioner would have undertaken under similar circumstances. A physician who acts without sufficiently informing a patient of known risks may be found to have fallen short of this standard, even if the procedure was executed competently.
Causation in failure to warn cases centres on the patient’s decision making process, rather than the technical aspects of causation. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that, had they received an adequate warning, they would have refused the treatment, postponed it, or selected a different option. The causal connection is established when the patient can demonstrate a lost opportunity to make an informed choice. The final element, damage, necessitates evidence of actual harm, encompassing physical injury, prolonged pain, disability, additional medical expenses, or diminished earning capacity.
Local instances illustrate the practical application of these principles. In public hospitals throughout Nigeria, patients undergoing procedures such as caesarean sections, hernia repairs, or appendectomies are frequently assured that the surgery is “routine,” without a meaningful disclosure of risks such as infection, excessive bleeding, nerve damage, or fertility complications. When such risks materialise, negligence is established because the patient was never informed that these outcomes were possible.
The issue is also evident within the private healthcare sector. Cosmetic surgeries, fertility interventions, and unproven treatments are becoming more prevalent in metropolitan areas, occasionally promoted with insufficient emphasis on potential hazards. When permanent harm or financial loss occurs, legal proceedings often centre on the validity of the informed consent process. If risks were understated or concealed, negligence can be demonstrated, even if the clinical procedure was technically appropriate.
This obligation is further supported by a Supreme court ruling in Medical and Dental Practitioner Disciplinary Tribunal v Okonkwo. A failure to provide adequate warnings may constitute professional misconduct.
A significant impediment persists in the form of limited access to legal lawyers. Numerous individuals affected by medical malpractice are unable to bear the costs associated with litigation, expert testimonies, and extended court battles. Within this framework, contingency fee agreements, often termed “no win, no fee” arrangements, are of paramount importance. These agreements stipulate that a lawyer will cover the litigation expenses and receive a predetermined percentage of any awarded compensation awarded by the court. Should the claim be unsuccessful, the client incurs no financial obligation. Despite their underutilisation and inconsistent regulation within Nigeria, contingency fee arrangements present a viable pathway to justice for injured patients who would otherwise be unable to pursue legitimate claims.
Documentation problems make things more complicated. Many Nigerian hospitals use standard consent forms that have unclear statements like “I accept all risks.” It is a fact that a signature alone doesn’t prove informed consent unless there’s proof that the risks were explained clearly in the way the patient would understand.
In short, negligence in failure to warn cases can be legally proven under Nigerian law. If duty, breach, causation, and damage are shown, liability follows. For many indigent injured patients, contingency fee agreements are the only practical way to enforce these rights. To better protect Nigerian patients when doctors don’t warn them about risks, we need to improve informed consent practices, better medical record keeping, and more access to legal aid.
This article is only meant for general understanding only and not legal advice. If you believe you’ve suffered any harm or injury due to a Medical Practitioners fault, and you are concerned about the viability of your case or high cost of hiring a lawyer, you can reach out to an experienced personal injury lawyer who may be willing to offer a free legal advice and handle your case on a “NO WIN, NO FEE” arrangement, which simply means you only pay if you win and get compensation.
. Michael ‘Lekan Odunlami is a Lagos-based personal injury lawyer at Claybrook Attorneys. He can be contacted via contact@claybrookattorneys.com; https://www.claybrookattorneys.com/personal-injury-claims/; and 09028978494.
