I Feel They Completely Ruined my Life!

I am submitting this formal complaint to document serious concerns regarding my facial surgery, the conduct of the consultant Aey, and the surgeon, Dr. Jeong Mi Sun. The issues outlined below involve deviations from accepted surgical standards, lack of adequate informed follow-up care, and actions that, based on my experience, raise serious concerns about patient welfare and accountability. ### Summary of Procedures I underwent the following procedures: * Deep plane facelift * Neck lift * Upper and lower blepharoplasty * Facial fat grafting The total cost exceeded $23,000. ### Surgical Technique Concerns **1. Facelift Incision Placement** The facelift incisions were placed directly into the temporal hair-bearing scalp above the ears. In male facelift patients, commonly accepted practice is to position incisions along natural creases immediately in front of the ear to reduce hairline distortion and visible scarring. The placement used in my case has resulted in: * Noticeable scars within the hair-bearing scalp * Distortion of the sideburn and temporal hairline due to removal of hair-bearing skin These outcomes were foreseeable and, in my understanding, avoidable using contemporary male-specific facelift techniques. I am concerned that healthy hair-bearing tissue was removed unnecessarily. **2. Upper and Lower Blepharoplasty** Following upper eyelid surgery, there appears to be excessive skin removal, resulting in an overcorrected and unnatural appearance. Additionally, visible scarring beneath the lower eyelids is present and uneven between sides. Based on postoperative photographs, I am concerned that a lateral canthoplasty may have been performed, resulting in a shortened eye shape. The geometry of my eye height, width, and length appears altered, and I do not recall providing explicit written consent for such a change. Many modern surgeons utilize transconjunctival approaches for lower blepharoplasty when appropriate to avoid external scarring, and the techniques used in my case do not appear consistent with current best practices. **3. Neck Lift** I expected a submental (under-the-chin) incision, which is commonly used for platysma tightening and comprehensive neck contouring. There is no visible evidence that this incision was performed, raising concerns about whether the neck procedure was fully completed as represented. When I look downward or move my head, my neck muscles protrude over the jawline, producing an aesthetically unfavorable result. **4. Fat Grafting** I was informed that certain standard grafting areas—including the tear troughs, temples, and hairline—could not be treated. These areas are routinely addressed in modern structural fat grafting when clinically appropriate. The exclusion of these regions has resulted in visible asymmetry, particularly along the forehead and hairline. ### Postoperative Care and Follow-Up Concerns After surgery, I raised these concerns and was advised to wait approximately six months before considering revision. After that period, I made repeated attempts to arrange follow-up meetings with hospital leadership and the surgical team. Despite these efforts, no substantive review, revision plan, or accountability discussion was provided. At one point, I was directed to communicate through an online group chat involving multiple staff members whose identities and roles were unclear to me. Requests for direct voice communication and clarification of names or titles were declined. I was later informed by my mother that hospital representatives contacted her by voice call expressing concern about my public review and requesting its removal. I was not contacted directly during this process. As a result: * Approximately one year passed without corrective guidance * No clear pathway for revision was provided * Responsibility for addressing complications remained unresolved * The situation caused significant distress This pattern reflects a failure to meet reasonable postoperative care expectations and raises concerns about administrative obstruction rather than clinical oversight. ### Consultant Conduct and Interference The consultant, Aey, played a central role in communication, scheduling, and postoperative access. Based on my experience, her conduct contributed to barriers in obtaining appropriate follow-up care and clarification regarding outcomes. While consultants do not hold clinical authority, her involvement appeared to significantly affect access to postoperative resolution. ### Conclusion The combination of: * Non-standard or disputed surgical techniques * Predictable aesthetic harm * Lack of transparency * Prolonged difficulty obtaining follow-up or revision raises serious concerns regarding patient care and institutional responsibility. I respectfully request from Nana Hospital: 1. A formal investigation into the conduct and care process involving the consultant and surgeon 2. Accountability measures consistent with medical and ethical standards 3. Written documentation of findings and corrective actions 4. Appropriate restitution for the harm and financial loss incurred This complaint is submitted in good faith and reflects my personal experience, supported by medical reasoning, documented outcomes, and a clear timeline of events.