The High Court awarded a woman €18,300 after finding that a cosmetic surgery clinic breached its contract by failing to ensure she received adequate advice before undergoing liposuction in July 2000. The court did not find the surgeon negligent.
In a judgment delivered on 23 May 2006, Mr Justice O’Neill said the patient had not been properly advised about the available procedures, which was most suitable for her, or the possible consequences of liposuction. These included bumps and irregularities, loose skin and muscle laxity that the procedure would not address. The judge accepted evidence that an abdominal plasty, or tummy tuck, would probably have been more suitable, and that she should first lose weight.
The patient had originally been scheduled to see a surgeon who did not attend either her consultation or the procedure. At the consultation, another doctor was substituted. The patient said that doctor was unfamiliar with the procedure and that the options and risks were not discussed. A consultation form signed by the doctor, but not the patient, was put in evidence; the doctor did not testify.
On the day of the procedure, the first defendant, Dr Hassan Sulaiman, took over after the scheduled surgeon again failed to attend. He told the court that he had discussed the options and risks with the patient and that she then signed a consent form. The patient said the discussion was brief and the form was not explained. The judge preferred her account, finding a full discussion was improbable in the circumstances. He concluded that she lacked the information needed to give informed consent.
The court found that the clinic, Advanced Cosmetic Surgery Limited, breached its contractual obligation to ensure she received that advice. It dismissed the negligence claim against Dr Sulaiman, finding he was entitled to assume that she had already been properly advised and that his substitution for another surgeon did not fall below the required standard of care.
The judge said the patient should be compensated for undergoing a procedure that should not have taken place, including its pain, discomfort, inconvenience and disappointment, as well as its cost. Although she felt her abdomen’s appearance had worsened, the judge found no objective cosmetic damage. He did find that loose skin caused a red rash on her lower abdomen, which he said had either been caused or made much worse by the procedure.
The court awarded €15,000 in general damages and ordered repayment of the £3,300 paid for the procedure. The total award was €18,300.