Cosmetic surgery clinic fined on £4,000 treatment

A CLINIC which carried out unregistered liposuction treatment has been handed a large fine in the first case of its kind.

Northern Clinic.com was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay another £22,500 in costs after performing a cosmetic surgery known as “Body Tite” on people at clinics in Wakefield and London.

Magistrates in Wakefield heard how the prosecution by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) was the first under the new regulations introduced as part of the Health and Social Care Act.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Northern Clinic.com admitted two offences of carrying out a regulated activity without being registered.

Prosecutor Iain MacDonald told the court how the procedure involved the insertion of a cannula into the body to remove fatty tissue.

He said the CQC carried out an investigation and documents discovered at the Wakefield office showed that clients were paying fees between £2,750 and £4,000 for the treatment.

Mr MacDonald told the court a woman in London who paid £3,000 for the Body Tite treatment went on to spend six nights in hospital suffering post-operative complications.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The firm were advised three times by the CQC that is shouldn’t carry out the activity without registration.

A spokesman for the CQC said after the case: “Neither the company nor the locations where treatment were being carried out were registered with the Care Quality Commission and so people using the service were at risk of receiving treatment which did not meet the standards which are required by law.

“Unregistered providers of private healthcare can present a risk to the public because they are not subject to scrutiny by the regulator,” he said.

The CQC was established to ensure hospitals, care homes and other care services are meeting government standards in the services they provide to clients.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

It announced recently that it had dismissed one of its own inspectors after an internal investigation triggered by whistle-blowing within the organisation, because that worker’s professional judgement was “seriously compromised”.

Related topics: