A patient faces a lack of informed consent when a medical provider performs or recommends treatment without giving enough information about the material risks, expected benefits, reasonable alternatives, and likely outcome of refusing care for the patient to make a meaningful decision.

In practice, the issue is not simply whether a consent form was signed. The real question is whether the patient was adequately informed before agreeing. For example, a surgeon may obtain a signature but fail to explain a significant risk of stroke, nerve damage, infection, cognitive change after anesthesia, or the option of a less invasive procedure. If a reasonable patient would have wanted that information before deciding, the missing explanation may support a claim. These cases often overlap with medical malpractice, but they are distinct from a mistake in how the procedure was performed.

For an injury claim, a patient usually must show more than a communication failure. The missing information must be tied to actual harm, and the patient generally must show that they would have declined or changed the treatment decision if properly informed. In Indiana, lack-of-informed-consent claims are commonly handled under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, which requires most claims against qualified providers to go through a medical review panel before court. Damages are also subject to the Act's statewide cap, with total recoverable amounts depending on when the malpractice occurred under Indiana Code article 34-18.