Federal Supreme Court Clarifies Enhanced Duty of Care in Cosmetic Surgeries

When beauty goes to court, who bears the greater burden, doctor or patient?

The Case in Context

The case arose from a tragic incident involving liposuction and fat transfer, which led to the death of a patient. A report from the Higher Medical Committee found gross negligence and breach of established medical protocols. On this basis, the Dubai Health Authority imposed a one-year suspension, which was ultimately upheld by the courts.

The UAE Federal Supreme Court has issued an important ruling that clarifies the heightened legal obligations of cosmetic surgeons. In Administrative Appeal No. 722 of 2025 (hearing of 1 September 2025), the Court held that because cosmetic surgery is elective and non-therapeutic, surgeons must meet an enhanced duty of care, going beyond what is expected of general practitioners.

Legal Principles Affirmed by the Court

• Definition of Medical Error. The Court confirmed that under Article 6 of Federal Decree-Law No. 4 of 2016 on Medical Liability, a medical error arises from ignorance of accepted technical practices, negligence, or failure to exercise due care—especially in procedures requiring heightened vigilance such as cosmetic surgery.
• Specific Obligations of Cosmetic Surgeons. Cosmetic surgeons are bound by an obligation of result, not merely an obligation of means. Importantly, this obligation of result arises only where the surgeon has made a clear promise; whether explicitly or impliedly about the expected aesthetic outcome. They may be liable if inappropriate or disproportionate methods are used, even with patient consent, unless causation is excluded.
• Evidentiary Weight of Higher Medical Committee Reports. A reasoned, technically sound report from the Higher Medical Committee may suffice to establish liability without the need to appoint a new expert. The trial court has discretion to rely on such reports.
• Rejection of Appeal Against Suspension Decisions. The Court clarified it lacked jurisdiction to review suspension decisions under Articles 102 and 104 of the UAE Constitution. Professional sanctions imposed by health authorities are administrative in nature and not subject to Federal Supreme Court appeal. Accordingly, the suspension challenge in this case was declined on jurisdictional grounds.

The ruling makes clear that in cosmetic surgery, liability extends beyond diligence to achieving results. It affirms the decisive weight of Higher Medical Committee reports, limits the protection of patient consent where methods are flawed, and confirms that disciplinary sanctions must be challenged administratively. For practitioners, the judgment signals that elective procedures require exceptional care, restrained assurances, and strict adherence to standards.

Practical Guidance for Practitioners

These ruling underscores several practical lessons for healthcare providers and cosmetic surgeons:

1. Manage patient expectations carefully. Avoid guarantees and ensure consent forms outline limitations and risks.
2. Document thoroughly. Keep clear records of alternatives discussed, reasons for chosen methods, and clinical decisions.
3. Prioritise proportionate methods. Liability may still arise if treatment methods are excessive or inappropriate.
4. Take Committee proceedings seriously. Reports can be decisive; cooperate fully and prepare comprehensive submissions.
5. Know the right forum. Challenges to suspensions must be pursued through regulatory or administrative channels, not the Supreme Court.

This case is more than precedent. It is a reminder that elective procedures are a high-risk area where legal exposure is amplified. Practitioners should use this moment to revisit their protocols, strengthen documentation, and align patient communications with both regulatory and judicial expectations.

In practice, small adjustments in preparation and compliance today can go a long way in mitigating risks tomorrow.