A brain cancer patient who never recovered from surgery performed by Charlie Teo thought of the star neurosurgeon as "God", a disciplinary hearing has been told. Dr Teo is facing a second day of proceedings before the Health Care Complaints Commission in Sydney over allegations, including that he did not sufficiently inform patients about the risks involved with surgery. The patient's husband appeared as a witness on Tuesday, saying prior to the surgery his wife began watching videos of Dr Teo on YouTube, believing he could give her extra weeks, months or even a year to live. "She actually thought he was God to be quite honest. She said that a couple of times," he said. The woman had been told by doctors in Melbourne her brain tumour was inoperable but Dr Teo said he could operate and informed her of a risk of paralysis to her left side and possible partial memory loss. As she was already paralysed on that side, wheelchair-bound and terminally ill, the woman submitted to the surgery. "We never got the discussion that it could go badly," the husband said. "Charlie Teo had told my wife ... if she didn't have the surgery by Tuesday, she would be dead by Friday. "That was why my wife made her mind up that she wanted the operation." The patient had also been taking part in cannabis treatment program run by Dr Teo that involved using cannabis oil. Dr Teo was restrained by the NSW Medical Council in August 2021 from operating without the approval of another doctor after an investigation by the commission. The 65-year-old is famous for performing neurosurgery on cancer patients with tumours other doctors have deemed inoperable but has been accused of charging exorbitant fees and offering some false hope. Dr Teo has consistently denied any wrongdoing and is expected to testify on Thursday. Earlier in the day a former neurosurgeon colleague of Dr Teo was grilled by the commission's counsel, Kate Richardson SC. An initial statement by Dr Amit Goyal to the commission in 2019 differed to a second statement drafted by Dr Teo's lawyers in the amount of detail it recalled Dr Teo providing to a separate patient with a brain tumour and her husband. The second patient also never woke up from her surgery, with her husband telling Monday's hearing they were driven by desperation to consent to her going under the knife. Dr Goyal told the commission in 2019 he was in the room with Dr Teo and the couple for two to three minutes while the risks of the surgery were explained to the couple. "Charlie didn't go into a lot of detail with (the patient and her husband) while I was in the room," Dr Goyal's statement said. "However I do specifically remember him emphasising how risky the surgery was ... and there was a chance the surgery could leave her in a vegetative state." In his second statement, Dr Goyal recalled a far greater level of detail regarding risk being conveyed to the patient and her husband, including a "significant risk of adverse outcome". Ms Richardson SC said the second statement had "emerged or been elicited" through contact with Dr Teo's lawyers. Dr Goyal said some of what he had written in his second statement could have come from later one-on-one discussions with Dr Teo in which he relayed what he had told the patient and her husband. Dr Teo's barrister, Matthew Hutchings, argued there was "no material inconsistency between the two documents". The inquiry, overseen by Judge Jennifer Boland, is expected to run until Friday. Australian Associated Press