Over 500 women have filed a class-action lawsuit against a Virginia medical center, alleging that they were subjected to unnecessary surgical procedures by former surgeon Dr. Javaid Perwaiz, and that the hospital failed to intervene despite knowledge of his conduct. The lawsuits, pending in Virginia courts, seek up to $10 million in damages for each plaintiff, citing physical harm, loss of sexual function, and other lasting medical consequences.
Dr. Javaid Perwaiz worked as a doctor at Chesapeake Regional Medical Center (CRMC) in Virginia, where he performed a range of surgical procedures, including hysterectomies, bladder repairs and pelvic floor reconstructions. According to legal filings, many operations were carried out despite no clear medical indication, and patients reported complications afterwards that affected their quality of life, including chronic pain, incontinence and sexual dysfunction.
The lawsuits describe Perwaiz’s actions as medically unnecessary and harmful, alleging that he repeatedly recommended surgery without proper diagnostic justification or informed consent. Former patients in the suit state that they later learned their procedures may not have been clinically indicated based on standard medical guidelines.
A central claim in the legal complaints is that the hospital system where Perwaiz practiced was aware or should have been aware of unusual patterns in his surgical practices and outcomes. Plaintiffs allege that:
Internal concerns about Perwaiz’s rates of certain surgeries were raised within the hospital.
Reports of complications or adverse outcomes were documented but not acted upon.
Despite red flags, administrators did not investigate or restrict his surgical privileges in a timely manner.
This alleged failure allowed continued performance of unnecessary procedures that harmed patients.
Hospital records, patient testimonies and internal emails are expected to be central to the case as plaintiffs seek to establish that the hospital’s oversight and quality assurance processes were deficient.
The lawsuits, filed in Virginia courts, are being pursued as class-action claims on behalf of women who underwent surgery under Dr. Perwaiz’s care. Plaintiffs are seeking significant financial remuneration for:
Physical injury and complications resulting from alleged unnecessary surgeries
Pain and suffering
Loss of sexual function or reproductive health
Emotional distress
Medical costs and ongoing care needs
In legal language, plaintiffs allege medical negligence, improper conduct, failure of institutional oversight, and deceptive practices. Damages are alleged to exceed $10 million per individual, reflecting both direct and consequential harms.
In clinical practice, procedures like hysterectomy and pelvic floor repair are recommended when specific medical indications exist, such as severe uterine pathology, uncontrollable bleeding, or structural issues with pelvic organs that do not respond to conservative management. Before undertaking surgery, physicians typically follow evidence-based protocols that include:
Thorough history and physical examination
Diagnostic imaging and lab testing
Discussion of conservative (non-surgical) options
Informed consent that outlines risks, benefits and alternatives
Medical ethics and surgical standards emphasise that surgery should only proceed when the expected benefits outweigh potential risks. Complications from unnecessary surgeries can include infection, organ injury, chronic pain, loss of function and psychological distress.
As of the latest filings, Mary Washington Healthcare representatives have not publicly detailed their defence in full, but hospital leadership is expected to contest claims, citing internal review processes and patient safety protocols. Statements emphasizing commitment to clinical quality and patient care may be part of official responses as the litigation progresses.
Legal counsel for the plaintiffs has indicated that discovery, the legal process of exchanging evidence, will likely uncover internal communications, surgical data, and quality reports relevant to institutional practices and oversight.
The case has drawn attention nationwide to issues of surgical oversight, patient consent and institutional accountability. Medical associations and patient safety advocates often emphasise that hospitals must have robust systems to detect patterns of unusually high surgical rates or complications, and intervene before patient harm accumulates.
(Rh)