Dr Teo has faced a second day of proceedings before the Health Care Complaints Commission in Sydney over allegations that include he did not sufficiently inform patients about the risks involved with surgery.
The patient's husband appeared as a witness on Tuesday, saying before the surgery his wife began watching videos of Dr Teo on YouTube and was under the belief he could give her extra weeks or months to live.
"She actually thought he was God to be quite honest. She said that a couple of times," the man said.
The woman had been told by doctors in Melbourne her brain tumour was inoperable but Dr Teo agreed to operate and buy her more time, telling them there was a risk of paralysis to her left side and possible partial memory loss, the husband told the hearing.
"He never once turned around and said to my wife 'you might not come out of this', the man said.
After the surgery the woman remained in a vegetative state until she died.
"Is it the case that you blame Dr Teo that your wife is gone?" Dr Teo's barrister, Matthew Hutchings asked the witness.
"Yes I do," he said.
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 Amit Goyal to the commission in 2019 differed to a second statement he provided in the amount of detail it recalled Dr Teo telling a separate patient with a brain tumour and her husband regarding risk.
Ms Richardson SC said the second statement had "emerged or been elicited" through contact with Dr Teo's lawyers.
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.
"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."
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".
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.
Mr Hutchings argued there was "no material inconsistency between the two documents".
The inquiry, overseen by Judge Jennifer Boland, is expected to run until Friday.
20°C