Copyright © 2026 Authors retain the copyright of this article. This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

@article{193635,
        author = {Sanya Shetty},
        title = {Evidentiary Gaps in Facial Surgery Negligence Litigation: The Role of Photographic Documentation under Indian Medical Law},
        journal = {International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology},
        year = {2026},
        volume = {12},
        number = {10},
        pages = {1088-1098},
        issn = {2349-6002},
        url = {https://ijirt.org/article?manuscript=193635},
        abstract = {Medical negligence claims arising from cosmetic and reconstructive facial surgery in India present distinct evidentiary challenges, particularly in proving deviation from the accepted standard of care. This paper examines whether the absence of pre and post operative photographic documentation creates structural evidentiary barriers for patients in facial surgery negligence claims within the framework of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam, 2023. Through doctrinal analysis of consumer forum and Supreme Court decisions applying the Bolam test as received in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005), the paper demonstrates how absent photographic documentation weakens complainants’ ability to establish negligence. It argues that inconsistent digital record-keeping in healthcare institutions creates structural evidentiary disadvantages for patients and proposes regulatory reforms, including mandatory photographic documentation protocols under National Medical Commission guidelines.},
        keywords = {Medical negligence, Facial surgery, Clinical photography, Consumer Protection Act 2019, Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam 2023, Evidentiary asymmetry, NMC guidelines},
        month = {March},
        }