The Federal Supreme Court establishes a new judicial principle related to the responsibility of the plastic surgeon

The Federal Supreme Court established a new judicial principle related to the responsibility of the plastic surgeon, confirming his commitment to achieving the purpose, not just making the necessary care, in a ruling issued by the administrative department of the court formed headed by Judge Mohamed Abdel -Rahman Al -Jarrah and the membership of the judges Dawood Ibrahim Abu Al -Shawarb and Dr. Hassan Mohamed Hassan Hind, at the first session of September in appeal No. 722 of 2025 administrative.

The department built its elimination on the basis that the responsibility of the plastic surgeon is based on an obligation to achieve the desired purpose of plastic surgery to leave the treatment character to resort to it, without limiting the commitment to do the necessary care in order to heal the patient as is the case in the responsibility of other doctors, as the plastic surgeon is obligated to choose the means that are appropriate to the defect or the distortion that afflicted the patient and leads to the patient’s condition after the operation before it was better than before According to the scientific and technical foundations of the profession, he must choose the most appropriate treatment for the patient’s condition in accordance with the general rules and stable principles.

The department explained in its ruling that plastic surgery is not in a hurry, and he asks the surgeon (the doctor) about every negligence in his medical course and is considered wrong according to the civil responsibility if he uses therapeutic means that lead to incompatible risks with the purpose that the patient expected to achieve unless the causal relationship between his action and the damage occurred.

The incident – the ruling place – was related to the doctor’s lack of commitment to the superior medical care to achieve the desired result to release a sick body and its unjustified deviation from the accepted medical principles and standards in such surgeries, which caused her death.

The ruling added a new principle, which leads:

– That the commitment to ensure safety in the medical contract of the surgeon (doctor) is a severe commitment that the patient should not be exposed to any damages or dangers due to what he used in his medical work, from the devices and tools, or the medications that he gives, and that it does not cause the patient to a new disease outside the disease subject to treatment; The reason for this is that the patient’s motives are motives, not therapeutic motives, so the surgeon (the doctor) does not provide the surgery if its risks are not commensurate with the benefit obtained from them, and if the patient’s satisfaction is satisfied.

– The decision issued by the Supreme Committee for Medical Responsibility is an administrative decision subject to the judiciary controlling the reason for the administrative decision, which finds its natural limit in verifying that the result that ended up is extracted from material and legal assets that exist before the decision is issued and that the legal adaptation of the reasons of the error leads to the result that the committee ended in accordance with the medical rules in force in the state, and the reason for the doctor’s responsibility or denying it and extracting the relationship of causation between The error and the damage or its negation, from the authority of the trial court.

The judgment suggested to the legislator the necessity of setting laws to keep pace with the errors of plastic surgery.