Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 92
repealedAct done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent
Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may causes to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person’s consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit;
Why this exists
Section 92 recognizes that emergencies and helplessness sometimes require quick action for someone's benefit before consent can be obtained. It extends the logic of Section 88 (consent to harm) to situations where consent is genuinely impossible to get — such as medical emergencies, unconscious victims, or young children in danger. The provision balances protecting bodily autonomy with allowing good-faith rescue and care.
How courts read it
Indian courts have applied Section 92 mainly in medical negligence and emergency treatment cases, holding that doctors who act in good faith to save a patient's life during an emergency — without obtaining consent because it was impossible to do so in time — are protected from criminal liability, provided their actions meet a reasonable standard of care and are not reckless or negligent.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: This section allows doctors or anyone to act without consent whenever they think it's best.
Fact: It only applies when getting consent was truly impossible in time, or the person could not legally consent and no guardian was available — not just personal judgment or convenience. - Myth: Section 92 covers all types of harm to a person for their 'benefit.'
Fact: The section (in its fuller original form) also includes exceptions — it does not protect acts like causing death intentionally, unless specific conditions are met, and always requires good faith, not just claimed good intention.