Supreme Court Rules Additional Surgery Without Patient Consent Constitutes 'Breach of Duty to Explain'

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has ruled that even if a consent form for plastic surgery was signed, if the doctor did not clearly explain the treatment areas, the doctor must take responsibility for surgical side effects.

On the 30th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Park Sang-ok) overturned the lower court's ruling, which had partially dismissed the plaintiff's case, and sent the case back to the Seoul Central District Court with a ruling in favor of the plaintiff in the damages lawsuit filed by patient A against obstetrician-gynecologist B.

In November 2012, patient A underwent vaginal plastic surgery at an obstetrics and gynecology clinic to prevent urinary incontinence. However, post-surgical complications such as stenosis of the surgical site and pain worsened, and another hospital diagnosed damage to the surgical area.

Ultimately, patient A filed a damages lawsuit against doctor B. A claimed that although consent was given only for two surgeries on the consent form, five surgeries were actually performed.

The first trial found doctor B liable for damages and ordered payment of a total of 23 million KRW, including 5 million KRW in consolation money to patient A. However, the court did not accept A’s claim that the doctor performed surgeries without proper explanation and without the patient’s consent.

The second trial mostly acknowledged A’s claims and increased the damages to 25 million KRW but did not recognize doctor B’s breach of the duty to explain. The court stated, "The claim that A did not consent to some surgeries stems from A’s unfamiliarity with anatomical terms or surgery names."

The Supreme Court, agreeing with the lower courts on doctor B’s liability for damages, also ruled that B violated the duty to explain as a physician. The court pointed out that for one of the three surgeries that A claimed not to have consented to, the doctor failed to provide proper explanation. The court stated, "It is not clear that A would have consented to this surgery even if a detailed explanation had been given by the doctor," and ruled, "The plaintiff’s lack of understanding should not be blamed."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.