A malpractice lawsuit is the legal route used to obtain redress for harm caused by a medical error in diagnosis, treatment, surgery or care. However, not every unfavorable treatment outcome is a doctor's error. In assessing liability, deviation from the medical standard, informed consent, the harm that occurred and the link between that harm and the intervention are examined together. Whom to apply to, in which court to sue and which time limits apply depend on the legal status of the person or institution that provided the health service. [K2; K3; K4]
This guide explains the rights of patients and their relatives, the limits of a physician's legal liability, the distinction between private and public hospitals, and the steps to take before filing a lawsuit. Two decisions of the Constitutional Court (AYM) dated 2025 and 2026 and a 2025 decision of the Court of Cassation on a cosmetic procedure are examined separately, with their actual outcomes stated. [K4; K5; K6]
What is malpractice, and when does it arise?
Malpractice is harm suffered by a patient because of conduct in a health service that is contrary to the professional standards of knowledge and care on the date of the event. The assessment cannot be reduced to the moment of surgery alone. Taking the patient's history, selecting the necessary tests, diagnosis, the treatment plan, medication, referral, post-operative follow-up and the discharge process form a whole. Nor is it correct to treat every past medical decision as erroneous in light of information learned afterward. [K2; K3]
Operating on the wrong patient or the wrong site, disregarding a known allergy, failing to request a necessary consultation, delay in evaluating emergency symptoms, leaving a foreign object during surgery, or failing to investigate developing bleeding in time may be the subject of a malpractice claim. These are only examples; in each concrete case the conditions of the intervention and its effect on the harm are investigated. [K2; K3]
A hospital-acquired infection or the need for a repeat operation likewise does not by itself prove fault. Infection-prevention measures, the patient's initial condition, the method used, follow-up records and what was done after the complication arose are all important. The organizational shortcomings of a hospital may be the cause of harm just as much as the error of a single health worker. [K1; K2]
The file should define a concrete breach of duty, not merely allege an outcome such as "wrong surgery." For example, in a claim of delayed diagnosis, the findings at the first visit, the test that should have been requested, the time the report was learned and the effect of the delay on the course of the illness are examined together; in a claim of harm during childbirth, the monitoring records, warning signs and the timing of the intervention are examined together. Whether harm that developed later is connected to the natural course of the earlier illness or to the alleged negligence must also be explained separately. [K2; K4]
How is a complication distinguished from a doctor's error?
A complication is an unintended condition that may develop during or after a medical intervention. That a risk is known in medicine does not mean it is preventable in every case. Conversely, labeling an outcome a "complication" does not end the legal examination. [K4; K5]
Four separate questions should be asked in the file: Was the intervention necessary and appropriate? Was the care required to reduce the risk exercised? Was the patient informed of the relevant risks in an understandable way? Was the problem that arose noticed in time and managed appropriately? Even where the surgical technique is correct, a delayed intervention or inadequate disclosure may constitute a separate ground of liability. [K4; K5]
A complication is not, of itself, a cause that breaks the causal link. Likewise, the fact that a complication developed does not automatically give rise to a right to compensation. The expert report must go beyond the term used and explain the concrete conduct and its consequences. For the patient, the workable approach is not merely to say "the surgery turned out badly" but to show with documents which duty was breached at which stage. [K2; K3; K4]
What are the bases of the legal liability of the physician and the hospital?
The duty of care in the treatment relationship and the rules on mandate
In medical services aimed at treatment, the provisions on the contract of mandate (vekâlet sözleşmesi) most often apply. As a rule, the physician does not guarantee a cure; the physician is obliged to show the care that the profession requires, with regard to the patient's interest. Under Article 506 of Law No. 6098, the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), the assessment rests on the conduct that a prudent physician working in a similar field would be expected to show in the concrete circumstances. [K2]
The duty of care covers, besides appropriate diagnosis and treatment, the necessary information, record-keeping, confidentiality, consultation and follow-up. Where the nature of the work and the contract require it, the duty of personal performance is taken into account. Working as a team does not remove the responsibilities of the physician and the institution within their own spheres of duty. [K2]
The organizational liability of a private hospital
The relationship between a hospital and a patient includes, besides treatment, duties of care, safety, sufficient staff, suitable equipment, hygiene, records and coordination. It would therefore be incomplete to limit liability to the personal error of the physician who performed the procedure. An inadequate on-call arrangement, a test result not being passed to the relevant physician, or emergency equipment being unusable may be examined separately. [K2]
Who the operator of the hospital is, how the physician works and who undertook the treatment must be determined. Provisions such as Articles 66 and 116 TBK may come into play depending on the nature of the concrete relationship. Whether claims against the hospital, the physician and other responsible parties can be heard in the same lawsuit also depends on the rules of jurisdiction and procedure. [K2]
Tort and agency without authority in emergency interventions
Where there is no contract, the tort provisions beginning with Article 49 TBK are important. Breach of contract and tort may be argued together in the same event. Merely calling a lawsuit a "tort" claim does not of itself bring a dispute arising from a consumer transaction within the jurisdiction of the general courts. [K2]
In events such as an emergency intervention on an unconscious patient, the provisions on agency without authority (vekâletsiz iş görme) are also examined if their conditions are met. It cannot be said that every emergency intervention is necessarily outside a contract. In a lawful intervention where consent could not be obtained because of a danger to life, the professional duty of care continues; the urgency is taken into account, but no general immunity arises for careless conduct. [K2; K3]
The standard of liability for agency without authority is separately regulated in Article 527 TBK. The negligence of the person acting generally gives rise to liability; where the person acted in order to remove the harm or danger of harm facing the patient, liability may be assessed more leniently. By contrast, where the work is carried out despite a prohibition that is not contrary to law and morality, a heavier liability for harm arising from unforeseen events may arise. These regimes are not rules that exempt an emergency intervention from liability under all conditions or that render the patient's valid refusal ineffective. [K2; K3]
Which rules apply to cosmetic surgery, hair transplantation and dental treatment?
Interventions in which a specific result is undertaken for purely cosmetic purposes may be assessed in court decisions within the framework of a contract for work (eser sözleşmesi). In that case, not only the technique of the procedure but also whether the agreed result was achieved and whether the work is defective become important. That said, not every cosmetic procedure is automatically a contract for work, and not every dissatisfaction is a defect. The purpose of treatment, the commitment given, the patient's initial condition and the parties' agreement are examined together. [K2; K6]
This distinction may arise in surgeries on the nose, breast, eyelid, ear, jaw, face and abdomen; liposuction and BBL; hair transplantation, implants and tooth whitening; and filler, botox and skin-renewal applications. In laser hair removal, laser lipolysis, Fraxel or CO2 laser, chemical peeling, dermapen, dermaroller, mesotherapy, PRP, microblading, and brow and lip procedures as well, the practitioner's authority, the type of procedure and the result claimed are investigated separately. [K2; K6]
Applications subject to different legal and medical conditions, such as stem cells or ozone, cannot be placed in the same category merely because of a marketing heading. Listing these examples is not a medical recommendation that the methods are permitted, necessary or effective for any purpose. The suitability of the product used, the content of the filler, skin problems arising after fat removal and the need for revision are examined according to the particulars of the event. [K2; K6]
In these files, the contract, messages, pre-procedure photographs, examples shown and written promises given are important. A commitment to a particular result must be distinguished from information that merely explains the possible outcome. The Court of Cassation decision of March 12, 2025 on a cosmetic intervention is addressed separately below. [K2; K6]
Informed consent: Is a signed form enough on its own?
For a patient to be able to decide about his or her own body, the purpose of the intervention, its method, significant risks, alternatives, the possible consequences of refusing it and the need for follow-up must be explained in an understandable way. The patient must be given the opportunity to ask questions and to decide. An explanation specific to the procedure and given in good time is not the same as merely having a signature in the file. [K3; K4; K14]
Articles 15, 18, 24 and 26 of the Patient Rights Regulation govern the information and consent process. Where a consent form is required, it is important that the explanation also be given orally, that the form be signed by the persons concerned and that a copy be given to the patient. For a foreign patient who has signed a document in a language he or she does not understand, whether the information was actually understood is assessed separately. [K3]
The burden of proving that disclosure was made and valid consent was obtained rests on the party providing the health service. Which risks were explained, whose signature it is, when the document was prepared and whether the patient was given time to reflect should be investigated. The existence of a form in general terms does not show, in every dispute, that sufficient disclosure was made. [K4; K5]
For minor patients or patients under legal restriction, the rules on the legal representative apply; the patient also takes part in the process to the extent that he or she can understand. Cases in which consent could not be obtained and the emergency-intervention conditions of the Regulation are present are assessed separately. The emergency and the procedures performed should be recorded, and, when circumstances permit, the patient or the representative should be informed. [K3; K4; K14]
Consent is not a document waiving doctors' errors in advance. Articles 115 and 116 TBK impose significant limits on exclusion-of-liability clauses in specialist services performed under a permit. Consent to treatment does not of itself permit the publication of the patient's photograph on social media; the conditions of privacy and personal data processing are assessed separately. [K2; K3; K14]
Consent to treatment and consent to the recording and publication of images are not the same thing
Accepting surgery does not of itself permit the use of the patient's photograph, voice, body image or treatment information for advertising, social media or live broadcast. Health data is special-category personal data. The legal basis, purpose, necessity, access authorizations and security of the processing are examined separately; leaving out identity details is not sufficient anonymization on its own where the person can be identified from other data. A record that is necessary for treatment must be distinguished from sharing for promotional purposes. [K3; K14]
In the decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation examined below, the sharing of surgery footage on social media is also among the parties' claims and defenses. However, the decision should not be presented as one that independently and conclusively rules that this sharing was unlawful; the express ground for reversal is that the result undertaken in the cosmetic work was not achieved and that the compensation examination was not carried out accordingly. [K6]
How do the patient's conduct and other factors affect liability?
For the physician and the hospital, the defense should explain, with records, the medical rationale of the procedure performed, the appropriate method, the measures taken against risks, the information given and the follow-up process. Force majeure or the conduct of a third person that breaks the adequate causal link may be assessed in the concrete event. The involvement of a third person in the process, or the patient's pre-existing illness, does not of itself remove all liability. [K2; K4]
The patient's failure to give correct information, failure to follow a clearly explained follow-up plan, or conduct that contributed to the worsening of the harm may matter in the assessment of compensation. The conditions for a reduction under Article 52 TBK are examined. However, it must be shown which instruction was given and when, and how failure to follow it affected the harm. Records proving that the patient was being followed at another institution should also be taken into account. [K2; K4]
What damages can be claimed for malpractice?
The purpose of pecuniary compensation is to make good the economic loss caused by the conduct held legally liable. As much as the name and amount of the claim, it must be explained for which loss it is sought and how it is connected to the event. [K2: Articles 53–56]
| Claim | What must be explained in the file |
|---|---|
| Costs of additional treatment and corrective intervention | The necessity of the treatment, its connection to the event, invoices and medical records |
| Loss of earnings and loss of working capacity | Income, occupation, the period of inability to work, permanent effects and calculation data |
| Care, transport and other necessary expenses | The medical basis of the need, its duration and the documentable amount |
| Impairment of economic future | Concrete professional effects and facts about the future loss |
| Losses due to death | Funeral expenses, losses before death and the support relationship |
| Non-pecuniary damages | The severity of the physical or mental effects, the particulars of the event and the closeness of the relationship |
Refund of the fee paid for the procedure is not the automatic result of every malpractice claim. The optional rights concerning a defective service, the type of contract and the benefit received are examined. The legal conditions of claims for a refund of the fee, for the procedure to be redone and for compensation of loss may differ; double payment cannot be demanded for the same loss. [K7]
In the case of death, compensation for loss of support does not depend solely on being an heir. The existence of an actual support relationship is decisive. The claims of relatives for non-pecuniary damages in cases of serious bodily harm or death are also examined within their own conditions. Claims that have passed into the deceased's estate must be distinguished from the losses relatives suffered directly. [K2; K5; K7]
There is no fixed tariff applicable to everyone for non-pecuniary damages. The nature of the fault, the effects of the harm and the circumstances of the event are assessed. The Constitutional Court's Ergül Karbadağ decision also shows that redress found insufficient in light of the concrete harm may be the subject of constitutional review; the amount in the decision does not set an automatic yardstick for other files. [K5]
How are a high hospital bill and an unlawful additional fee assessed?
A high bill is not by itself proof of medical malpractice. Whether a medical procedure complies with standards and the collection of a charge contrary to the contract, to prior information or to fee legislation are different matters. Even so, in the same event there may be both a treatment error and a claim for a refund of the charge or a discount; the bases of the claims and why each payment is being reclaimed must be shown separately. [K2; K7]
An additional fee within SGK coverage must be distinguished from the price of a service outside coverage
At a health facility contracted with the Social Security Institution (SGK), the limits of an additional fee charged for a service financed by the Institution are not the same as the contractual price of a service not financed by the SGK. For this reason, a single rate cannot be applied to every private hospital bill. SGK announcements separately regulate written approval of the fee before the service, the itemization of the service and the additional fee, and the procedures for which no additional fee may be charged. [K18]
The ban on additional fees is important for groups such as health services given because of an emergency, intensive care and newborn services. However, without examining the green-zone examination, the end of the emergency and the special exceptions set out in the legislation, the conclusion that "no fee can be charged at any stage from a patient who entered through the emergency room" cannot be drawn. [K19]
Which documents should be in an objection file?
A detailed invoice and itemization of procedures, proof of payment, a price quotation before the service, written approval of the additional fee, any notice that the emergency had ended, SGK transaction records and private-insurance pre-authorization should be requested together. A written objection to the hospital citing the specific items may be considered; for a violation within SGK coverage, an application to the Institution; and, as to supervision of the health service, an application to the competent health authority. Recovery of the charge may, depending on the nature and amount of the dispute, require the consumer arbitration committee or the consumer court. An administrative complaint does not in every case automatically secure a refund or compensation. [K7; K18; K19]
Against whom and in which court is the lawsuit filed?
Private hospital, clinic and independent physician
If the patient is a consumer who receives the health service for a non-commercial and non-professional purpose, the relationship with a private physician or health facility is mostly a consumer transaction. In that case the dispute is heard in the consumer court; where there is no consumer court, the court designated acts in the capacity of a consumer court. Claims within the remit of the consumer arbitration committee are separated out. [K7]
In identifying the defendant, one should not rely solely on the hospital's signboard or brand name. The company that issued the invoice, the licence holder, the party to the contract, the physician's working relationship and the basis of liability are investigated. The jurisdiction rules for claims against the physician, the operator or the insurer may not be the same. In separate insurance disputes, the commercial court and the conditions for commercial claims may also come into play. [K1; K7; K8; K9; K10; K16]
As to territorial jurisdiction, the consumer's place of residence, the defendant's place of residence and the relevant special provisions are assessed. It cannot be said that, for all files, a lawsuit can be filed only where the hospital is located. [K7; K8; K13]
State hospital and public university hospital
For harm arising from a health service provided as a public duty, the rule is an application to the administrative authority concerned and a full remedy action in the administrative court. Under Article 129(5) of the Constitution, a claim for compensation based on fault in the performance of the service is, in general, not directed straight at the public servant. Identifying the correct administration is important for a hospital attached to the Ministry and for a university hospital with its own legal personality. Allegations of personal conduct separable from the duty are examined separately. [K1; K9]
Foundation universities and hospitals in cooperation arrangements
The public legal personality of a foundation university and the status of a private hospital operator must not be confused. As to a health service in the university's own hospital, case law leaning toward the administrative courts is important. For a private hospital cooperating with the university, however, it must be investigated separately within what structure and by whom the service was provided. [K1; K7; K8; K9; K10; K16]
In the cooperation model under Additional Article 15 of Law No. 3359, the assignment of the teaching staff member and the connection of the procedure to educational and research activity may affect the jurisdiction analysis. The scholarly literature also stresses that this model cannot be resolved by looking at a single hospital name. For this reason, no definitive recommendation of a court should be given without seeing the invoice, the licence, the protocol and the physician's status. [K10; K16]
Is mediation or an application to the administration required before filing a lawsuit?
In disputes to be heard in the consumer court, mediation as a condition precedent to litigation applies as a rule under Article 73/A of Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (TKHK). The exceptions listed in the Law, especially disputes within the remit of the consumer arbitration committee, are assessed separately. If a commercial money-claim lawsuit is to be filed against the insurer, examination under Article 5/A of Law No. 6102, the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK), is also needed. [K7; K13]
In the mediation application, the persons alleged to be liable and the claims must be identified correctly. It must be clear which losses, which persons and which future consequences any agreement reached at the end of the talks covers. A vague "waiver of all rights" text should not be signed without understanding its effects. [K7; K9; K12]
In a full remedy action concerning a public hospital, on the other hand, the preliminary application under Article 13 of Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (İYUK) comes to the fore in place of private-law mediation. An application is made to the administration concerned, explaining the harm and its legal grounds and containing the request for redress. A complaint petition submitted to the hospital's patient rights unit may not, depending on its content and addressee, take the place of this application. [K9]
Applying to the prosecutor's office, CİMER or the patient rights unit does not of itself stop all the time limits for a compensation lawsuit. The effect on time limits in mediation arises under statutory conditions. A separate calendar should be kept for each type of application. [K9; K12]
Limitation and filing periods in a malpractice lawsuit
There is no single "filing period" valid in every case for malpractice. Even the periods for claims against different persons arising from the same event may differ. The table below shows the basic distinctions; the starting date, learning, falling due, and the grounds that suspend or interrupt limitation are calculated separately. [K2; K7; K9; K11]
| Legal route | Basic period and important distinction |
|---|---|
| Tort compensation | Article 72 TBK: 2 years from learning of the harm and the liable person, 10 years from the act; a longer criminal limitation period if its conditions are met |
| Claim under a contract of mandate | Article 147/5 TBK: 5 years. At the outset, the due date under Article 149 and the nature of the concrete claim are examined |
| Other contractual claims | For claims with no special provision, the 10-year period in Article 146 TBK may come into play; not every hospital claim is automatically subject to the same period |
| Defective service | Article 16 TKHK: unless there is a longer statutory or contractual period, 2 years from performance; there is a special rule for a defect concealed by gross fault or fraud |
| Contract for work and defect | Article 147/6 and Article 478 TBK govern different claims. Article 478 provides 2 years for a defective work other than an immovable structure and 20 years in case of gross fault. For a cosmetic intervention it cannot be said directly that it is "always 5 years" |
| Harm from a public service | Article 13 İYUK: an application to the administration concerned within 1 year from learning and, as a rule, 5 years from the act; after rejection, generally a 60-day period to sue |
| Administration's failure to respond | If no reply is given to the preliminary application within 30 days, an implied rejection arises; the lawsuit period that follows is tracked |
| Objection to the Professional Responsibility Board (MSK) decision on permit | 10 days from notification of the decision concerned; Ankara Regional Administrative Court under Additional Article 18 of Law No. 3359 |
The table does not determine the last day to apply for any one file. Where the harm or its link to the intervention was learned later, the date of learning and the documents relating to it are of particular importance. In administrative justice, the time limits must be assessed in light of case law connected with the right of access to a court. Two extreme approaches are both misleading: "years have passed since the event, absolutely no route remains" and "I only just learned of the harm, all periods start again." [K2; K7; K9; K10; K11]
Sending a notice or talking with the hospital also does not interrupt limitation in every case. The calculation of time limits should not be left to the end of preparing the lawsuit; it should be made at the first review. [K2; K7; K9; K11]
The time plan must be prepared separately for each counterparty
For the physician, the private hospital, the public administration and the insurer, the periods and preconditions of claims arising from the same event may differ. The dates of treatment, of the harm coming to light, of learning of the harm and the responsible person, of the application to the hospital, of mediation, of the permit decision and of notification should be kept in a single schedule but with their legal effects in separate columns. The continuation of a criminal investigation, a hospital's statement that it is open to talks or an insurance review does not mean that all the lawsuit periods have stopped. [K2; K9; K12; K13]
How is a doctor's error proven, and which documents should be collected?
In civil proceedings, the general rule in Article 190 of Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (HMK) applies. The patient must substantiate the facts relied on, the loss and the causal link. In breach of contract, the rule in Article 112 TBK concerning the debtor's burden of proving absence of fault is also important. Proof of disclosure and consent, however, is the obligation of the party providing the health service. It therefore cannot be said either that "the entire burden of proof is on the patient" or that "the patient does not have to prove anything." [K2; K4; K8]
The document file should contain, as far as possible, the following records: [K2; K3; K8]
- Hospital admission documents, contracts, invoices and payment records.
- Examination notes, the discharge summary (epikriz), surgery and anesthesia records, nurse observations, consultations and the discharge plan.
- The original digital files of test results and imaging; situations in which report summaries alone should not be relied on.
- Procedure-specific information and consent documents; preparation dates and interpreter records.
- Dated photographs before and after the procedure, correspondence, follow-up appointments and referral documents.
- Records of subsequent treatment, incapacity-for-work documents, and proof of income and expenses.
Under Article 16 of the Patient Rights Regulation, the right to inspect the records and obtain copies may be exercised. e-Nabız data is helpful; it does not always replace the institution's entire patient file. Records should be requested from the hospital in writing, and the application and delivery details should be kept. If the records are not provided, the court can be asked to have the relevant documents brought in. [K3; K8]
A missing record does not automatically cause all the allegations to be treated as true; however, the deficiency of an institution that has a duty to keep records cannot be disregarded in the assessment of evidence. The originals of photographs should be preserved, file dates should not be altered and correspondence should not be taken out of context. Preservation of evidence may be needed before the medical condition changes. Even so, necessary treatment should not be postponed in order to gather evidence. If possible, the condition before the corrective procedure should be documented with an independent medical record. [K2; K3; K8]
How is an objection made to an expert or Forensic Medicine report?
Medical standard, fault and causation require expert examination in most files. However, the report of the Council of Forensic Medicine or of another expert is not a final judgment that binds the court in every case. Under Article 282 HMK, the judge evaluates the report together with the other evidence. The final decision on legal characterization and the conditions of compensation belongs to the court. [K8]
An effective objection should not consist of the sentence "we do not accept the report." It should point to a record that was not examined, an incorrectly assumed event date, an unanswered question, a lack of the appropriate specialty, or a conclusion whose medical reasoning is not explained. The report should be asked to assess separately how the complication arose and how it was managed, and to take into account the data in the file on disclosure and consent. [K4; K8]
In the ordinary courts, under Article 281 HMK, within two weeks of notification of the report, the completion of deficiencies, an explanation or a new expert may be requested. Under the statutory conditions, where the application is made within the first period, a one-time additional period not exceeding two weeks may be granted; this is not automatic. In an administrative-court file, the procedure applied and the period in the notification must be tracked separately. [K4; K8]
Obtaining an expert opinion under Article 293 HMK is also possible. Such an opinion does not of itself replace the examination by the expert appointed by the court; it helps to make technical objections concrete. The Constitutional Court's Sebiha Çelik decision shows the importance of not leaving the patient's main objections without reasons. [K4; K8]
An effective objection does not merely state that the conclusion of the report is not accepted. It should show which medical record was not seen, which area of specialty is missing, which date or finding the report contradicts and how this deficiency would change the calculation of fault, causation or loss. The view that there was no technical fault on the part of the physician does not make it unnecessary to examine separately the validity of consent, the hospital's organizational liability or, in a cosmetic intervention, the result undertaken. [K4; K6; K8]
How to proceed step by step when malpractice is suspected
- Health is secured. Necessary examination and treatment continue; the current condition and any new procedures are entered in the medical records.
- A chronology is prepared. The dates of the first visit, the procedure, the onset of complaints, check-ups, referrals and learning of the harm are gathered in a single schedule.
- Time limits and counterparties are reviewed. The public or private institution distinction, the hospital operator, the physician, the insurer and the application periods are determined.
- The file and evidence are obtained. The patient file, consent, images, correspondence and expenses are collected; if necessary, preservation of evidence is considered.
- The preliminary application is completed. In a suitable file, mediation, the consumer arbitration committee or an application to the administration concerned is pursued.
- The claim and the lawsuit are drawn up. The heads of pecuniary loss, non-pecuniary damages, interest and the defendants are explained. If the amount cannot yet be determined, the conditions of an action for an unquantified claim are examined separately.
- The expert examination and the appeal routes are followed. A concrete objection is made to a deficient or contradictory report; after notification of the judgment, the appeal routes and periods are assessed.
All of these steps may not be completed in the same order in every file. If there is a risk to a time limit, some steps are carried out together. Because compensation, criminal and disciplinary processes have separate legal purposes, time limits in one should not be neglected while waiting for the outcome of another. [K2; K3; K7; K8; K9]
The statement of claim, litigation costs and preparing for appeal
A claim for compensation should be built on the heads of loss rather than an abstract total amount. The cost of initial treatment, the cost of corrective intervention, loss of working capacity and non-pecuniary harm should be separated; the interest requested and its starting date should be explained. Not every event in which the loss cannot be fully determined at the outset is automatically suited to an action for an unquantified claim; the conditions of Article 107 HMK must be made concrete. An increase of the amount in administrative justice, on the other hand, is not identical to the HMK rules and is addressed separately under Article 16(4) İYUK. [K2; K8; K9]
The court-fee exemption in a consumer lawsuit filed by a consumer does not mean that the risks of expert, notification, translation and expert-opinion costs and of the opposing party's attorney's fees disappear entirely. Judicial assistance from the court and the bar's legal aid mechanism for attorney services are different. In determining the scope of the claim, the state of the proof and the cost risk attached to the rejected part should be assessed as much as the legal basis. [K7; K8]
The post-judgment process should be conducted by examining together the notification of the reasoned judgment, whether an appeal route is open, the monetary thresholds, the filing period and the prospects of collection. In an appeal petition to the regional court of appeal (istinaf) or to the Court of Cassation (temyiz), instead of merely saying "the report is wrong," the concrete deficient examinations and errors of legal characterization that affect the judgment should be shown. The issuance of a compensation judgment does not mean that the insurance company will pay every item immediately and without limit. [K8; K9; K13]
The physician's criminal liability and the Professional Responsibility Board
The Turkish Penal Code has no independent offense called "malpractice." The concrete act is examined, depending on its conditions, as negligent injury, negligent homicide or another offense. The current basic sanction under Article 89(1) TCK is imprisonment from four months to two years or a judicial fine. The wording "three months to one year" in older texts is no longer current. Aggravated consequences and harm to more than one person give rise to different provisions. For negligent homicide, Article 85 TCK applies. [K15]
For negligent injury, the complaint requirement and the exceptions for conscious negligence are examined separately under Article 89(5). In cases dependent on a complaint, the six-month period in Article 73 TCK is assessed according to learning of the act and the perpetrator. The patient or a relative may apply to the prosecutor's office; a criminal case is opened, where the necessary conditions exist, by the court's acceptance of the prosecutor's indictment. Filing a complaint petition does not directly mean a conviction. [K10; K11; K15]
Additional Article 18 of Law No. 3359 regulates the permit system for investigations concerning examination, diagnosis and treatment procedures within its scope. The exception introduced for those subject to the investigation procedure in Article 53 of Law No. 2547 is reserved. In events within its scope, the permit authority is the Professional Responsibility Board (Mesleki Sorumluluk Kurulu) within the Ministry of Health. Against the decision to grant or refuse a permit, an application is made to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court within 10 days of notification, by the person who has the right to object. [K10; K11]
An investigation permit is not a general precondition for filing a compensation lawsuit. The consequence of a missing permit in the criminal proceedings is also not direct rejection in every event; a stay decision may come into play, under the necessary conditions, within Article 223(8) of Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure (CMK). Disciplinary review, criminal investigation, compensation and the administration's assessment of recourse should be kept apart. [K10; K11; K15]
An acquittal in the criminal court does not in every case end the compensation claim under Article 74 TBK. The reasoning of the acquittal, the findings of material fact and the conditions of liability in the civil proceedings are assessed separately. The filing of a compensation lawsuit or a judgment of compensation does not of itself create a criminal record entry. [K2; K15; K17]
Discipline, the supervision of the health administration and licence-related procedures are separate from the criminal investigation and the compensation lawsuit. Filing a complaint petition does not of itself bring about the physician's removal from the profession, the cancellation of the hospital's licence or the filing of a public prosecution. In every process, the competent authority, the procedure to be applied, the right of defense and the statutory conditions of the sanction are observed. [K10; K11; K15]
How does compulsory professional liability insurance come into play?
Additional Article 12 of Law No. 1219 regulates compulsory financial liability insurance for medical malpractice for the physicians within its scope. The existence of a policy does not mean that every claim automatically falls within cover or that the insurer will pay all of the patient's loss. The dates of the event and of the claim, the insurance period, the cover limit, the scope and the relevant general conditions are examined. [K13]
Article 1478 TTK gives the injured party, under its conditions, a right to apply directly to the insurer. The notice to the insurer should set out the event, the health records and the heads of loss claimed. The time limits applicable in insurance matters and the competent court are assessed separately. The conditions of claims against other responsible parties for loss that falls outside the insurance cover or exceeds its limit are reserved. [K13]
For the physician and the hospital as well, it is important that the claim be notified without delay in accordance with the policy conditions, that records be preserved and that the defense be built consistently. [K13]
The physician's professional liability policy, the patient's private health insurance and the hospital's own liability insurance do not replace one another. It should not be assumed that the physician's policy also covers all the organizational risks of the hospital; the insured person, the scope of cover and the counterparty should be determined separately. Timely notice of the lawsuit or the compensation claim, and review of any settlement or release text together with the policy, are a matter of security of collection that is independent of the liability debate. [K13]
How can foreign patients seek their rights in Türkiye?
Being a foreign national does not of itself remove the legal routes available for an intervention carried out in Türkiye. A foreign patient can conduct the proceedings through a lawyer in Türkiye with an appropriate power of attorney. For documents issued abroad, certification or apostille, translation and the scope of the authority of representation are assessed according to the document. [K3; K8]
The medical tourism intermediary, the clinic and the physician who performed the procedure may not be the same person or company. The package contract, the recipient of the payment, the promises made, the transfer and accommodation arrangements and the institution that actually provided the health service should be identified separately. An intermediary merely providing communication and an intermediary undertaking the treatment in its own name do not produce the same legal result. [K3; K8]
The records, invoices and medical grounds for corrective procedures performed abroad should be preserved. Their connection to the event and the necessity of the expenses are examined. The language in which the patient received the information, the identity of the interpreter and the correspondence may also matter in assessing consent. [K3; K8]
Not every foreign patient is required to be in Türkiye throughout the lawsuit. Even so, attendance may be needed for examination, expert review or personal acts the court considers necessary. For this reason, no result such as "everything will certainly be completed without coming at all" should be promised. In files with a foreign element, additional procedural matters such as the applicable law, international jurisdiction and security are examined separately. [K3; K8]
What do current decisions say for malpractice lawsuits?
The Constitutional Court's Sebiha Çelik decision: Complication, follow-up records and pecuniary loss
Constitutional Court, First Section, Sebiha Çelik, App. No: 2022/18719, January 28, 2026. The application concerns health problems that developed after goiter surgery and the full remedy action that was filed. The Forensic Medicine report stated that there was no document showing that the patient had attended check-ups; the patient claimed that she was followed at public and private health facilities after the surgery. The Constitutional Court found it significant that this concrete objection, which could affect the outcome, was not re-examined and assessed with sufficient reasoning. [K4, §§ 5–8, 23–24]
Although a service fault had been established in the file because of breach of the duty of disclosure and 10,000 TL in non-pecuniary damages had been awarded in a separate proceeding, the effect of the lack of consent on the lawfulness of the intervention was not sufficiently investigated in relation to the rejection of the claim for pecuniary compensation. The Constitutional Court held, because of this deficiency in reasoning, that the right under Article 17 of the Constitution had been violated. [K4, §§ 21–27]
Practical value of the decision: A conclusion such as "it is a complication" is not sufficient to reach a judgment without examining the patient's concrete objections concerning check-up and treatment records. Where a lack of consent has been established, treating it only as to non-pecuniary harm and leaving pecuniary compensation without reasons may also be subject to constitutional review. [K4, §§ 24–27]
Limit of the decision: The Constitutional Court did not itself calculate and award malpractice compensation; it ordered a retrial and rejected the compensation claims in the individual application. A retrial does not mean automatic acceptance of all heads of pecuniary loss. The complaint of unreasonable length of proceedings was found inadmissible because the application routes had not been exhausted. [K4, §§ 28–34 and operative part]
The Constitutional Court's Ergül Karbadağ decision: Valid consent and adequate redress
Constitutional Court, First Section, Ergül Karbadağ, App. No: 2021/13476, January 15, 2025; Official Gazette: October 2, 2025, No. 33035. In the case concerning complications that developed during an abortion and subsequent operations, the investigation to the effect that there was no fault in the technical medical practice was found sufficient. By contrast, it was established during the proceedings that the signature on the consent document did not belong to the patient; because of the lack of disclosure, 4,000 TL in non-pecuniary damages was awarded. [K5, §§ 2–8, 21–24]
Taking into account the multiple operations undergone, the long inpatient treatment and the non-pecuniary effects experienced, the Constitutional Court determined that there was a disproportion between this amount and the circumstances of the case and the harm. A violation under Article 17 of the Constitution and a retrial were ordered. Finding the technical practice correct did not remove the examination of valid informed consent and adequate redress. [K5, §§ 22–26, 32]
Limit of the decision: The decision did not treat all complications as doctors' errors and did not set a new, general tariff for non-pecuniary damages. In the assessment, it was specifically noted that pecuniary compensation had not been claimed in the first lawsuit. The Constitutional Court rejected the compensation claims in the application because the retrial was considered sufficient; it also did not examine the complaint of unreasonable length of proceedings because the application route had not been exhausted. [K5, §§ 24–25, 27–33]
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber: The result undertaken in a cosmetic intervention
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/2449, K. 2025/1005, March 12, 2025. In a dispute arising from a breast reduction and lift procedure, the Chamber took as its basis that the concrete contract was a contract for work and that the agreed cosmetic result had been undertaken. In the decision, dismissing the case on the strength of reports stating only that there was no technical fault was not considered sufficient; it was expressly stated that the result promised by the physician had not been achieved and that the procedure performed had not produced a result in the patient's interest. [K6, V/B]
For this reason, it was held that the heads of pecuniary loss must be clarified under Article 31 HMK, that pecuniary compensation must be calculated through an expert examination and that non-pecuniary compensation must be assessed. The explanation and correct management of a complication was also stated to be within the responsibility of the physician as contractor. [K6, V/B]
Limit of the decision: The regional court of appeal's decision rejecting the case on the merits was set aside and the first-instance judgment was reversed. This does not mean that a specific amount was definitively paid to the patient. Nor does the decision turn every treatment into a contract for work; the cosmetic purpose of the concrete intervention, the result undertaken and the scope of the contract are decisive. [K6, VI]
Mistakes to avoid when pursuing your rights
The first mistake is to reduce all claims to the statement "the doctor made an error." The technical procedure, disclosure, follow-up, organization and, if any, a cosmetic-result commitment should each be built on separate facts. The second mistake is to overlook that another application period continues to run while waiting for a reply from the insurer or the prosecutor's office. The third mistake is to assume that an e-Nabız printout alone contains the entire patient file. [K2; K4; K8; K9]
The fourth mistake is to delay a medically necessary new treatment on the ground of gathering evidence; the fifth is not to document, as far as possible, the existing condition before a new intervention. The sixth mistake is to sign a general release covering future losses in return for a small payment or a free revision. Finally, sharing health records on social media or in public comment areas may give rise to personal data and privacy problems separate from the need for proof. [K2; K3; K8; K14]
Conclusion
In a malpractice dispute, a strong file is built by identifying the right counterparty and judicial route, calculating the time limits at the outset, collecting the patient's records in full and making the medical allegations concrete. Complication, consent, technical fault and harm should be examined separately; the main deficiencies in the expert report should be raised in time. The outcome cannot be determined by looking only at the success of the treatment or at a single form. [K2; K4; K8; K9]
In a concrete case, the status of the institution, the date of the intervention, the date of learning, the contracts and the medical documents should be examined together.
Related articles: How Is a Malpractice Lawsuit Filed?, How Is Malpractice Proven?, Objecting to an Expert and Forensic Medicine Report, Limitation and Filing Periods, How Is Malpractice Compensation Calculated?, Criminal Complaint and Investigation Permit for a Doctor's Error, How to Obtain Your Patient File and Medical Records
Frequently Asked Questions
How long does a malpractice lawsuit take?
No single period can be given. Obtaining the patient file, expert examinations, objections to the report, the court's workload and appeal routes affect the duration. Administrative target periods are not a guarantee that the concrete case will become final on that date. [K8]
In which situations can a malpractice lawsuit be filed?
A lawsuit may come into question if it is claimed that harm arose from a breach of medical care or another legal duty. Physical harm alone is not sufficient; the legal basis, the breach of duty and the causal link are assessed. [K2; K3]
Who pays the court costs, and can judicial assistance be requested?
The regime of fees and costs varies by type of lawsuit; for consumers, the fee exemption does not mean that all costs disappear. In the end, costs are allocated under the procedural rules. If the conditions are met, judicial assistance may be requested from the court, and attorney support from the bar under separate conditions. [K7; K8]
What does the judge look at in a malpractice lawsuit?
The judicial route, time limit, claim, contract, medical records, consent, harm and causation are examined. In civil proceedings, the parties' responsibility to plead and prove is important; in administrative justice, the principle of ex officio investigation also applies. The expert report is assessed together with its reasoning. [K4; K8; K9]
Where is an investigation permit for a doctor obtained?
In procedures within Additional Article 18 of Law No. 3359, the Professional Responsibility Board is competent. The persons within Article 53 of Law No. 2547 and the exceptions relating to the type of procedure should be examined separately; there is no single permit procedure for all physicians and all acts. [K10]
Does the patient have to obtain the investigation permit?
The patient may apply to the prosecutor's office. In an event requiring a permit, the procedure for requesting the permit from the competent authority is carried out by the investigating authorities. The patient obtaining a permit document in advance is not a condition of every compensation application. [K10; K11]
Can a compensation lawsuit be filed without an investigation permit?
The permit relating to a criminal investigation and the conditions of a compensation lawsuit are different. The existence of a permit process does not in general close the compensation route. The mediation or preliminary application to the administration requirement and the time limits that apply to compensation are applied separately. [K9; K10]
What can be done if the Professional Responsibility Board refuses permission?
Against a decision within Additional Article 18 of Law No. 3359, the complainant who has the right to object, or the prosecutor's office, may apply to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court within 10 days of notification. The date of notification and the persons and acts covered by the decision should be examined carefully. [K10; K11]
Who can claim compensation for malpractice?
The injured patient, the legal representative under the rules of representation and, if the conditions are met, relatives may apply. In the case of death, claims passing by inheritance differ from claims for loss of support and relatives' claims for non-pecuniary damages; being an heir is not the sole criterion for every claim. [K2]
Is malpractice a tort?
It may give rise to tort liability; however, contract, defective-service or public-service liability may also come into play. The legal nature of the lawsuit is not determined solely by the heading used in the petition. [K2; K7; K9]
Where can malpractice be reported?
An allegation of an offense may be submitted to the prosecutor's office; an administrative complaint about the health service to the relevant health authorities or the patient rights unit. The disciplinary authority varies according to the person's status. None of these applications on its own satisfies all the procedural requirements of a compensation claim. [K10; K15]
What penalty can a doctor receive?
Depending on the outcome and the fault, the relevant offense provisions are examined, primarily Article 85 or 89 TCK. The occurrence of medical harm is not an automatic ground for conviction; the elements of the offense and the necessary procedural conditions must be present. [K15]
Is the basic penalty for injury in malpractice still three months to one year?
No. The basic sanction in Article 89(1) TCK is imprisonment from four months to two years or a judicial fine. For events from earlier dates, the provisions in force at the date of the offense and the later provisions are assessed separately, with regard to the principle of the more favorable law. [K15]
Is a malpractice lawsuit entered on the doctor's criminal record?
A compensation lawsuit or an obligation to pay compensation is not, on its own, entered on the criminal record. The registration regime for decisions given in criminal proceedings is separate. The special registration rules for a final conviction and for deferment of the pronouncement of judgment should not be confused. [K17]
Is a lawyer mandatory in a malpractice lawsuit?
As a rule, a person may pursue his or her own case. However, time limits, jurisdiction, the choice of parties and the medical expert examination are technical matters. Legal assistance allows these matters to be assessed together at the start of the file; it does not guarantee a particular outcome. [K8]
I signed the consent form; can I still file a lawsuit?
Yes, a signature does not of itself remove the right to sue. The scope and timing of the information, the validity of consent, professional care and the harm that occurred are examined separately. A consent form is not advance permission for careless practice. [K3; K4]
If the Forensic Medicine report found no fault, is the case over?
No. It is checked whether the report addressed all the records and the main objections. If there is a concrete deficiency or contradiction, a supplementary report or a new examination may be requested. However, mere dissatisfaction with the outcome does not invalidate the report. [K4; K8]
Does having corrective surgery remove the right to sue?
Having necessary treatment does not of itself end the right to sue. If possible, the condition before the procedure and the grounds for the corrective intervention are documented. An intervention that is necessary for health should not be postponed merely to collect evidence. [K2; K8]
If there is an acquittal in the criminal case, is compensation also rejected?
Not in every case. Under Article 74 TBK, the civil judge is not bound in the same way by the acquittal and by the criminal-law assessment of fault. The findings of material fact, the reasoning of the acquittal and the duty on which the compensation is based are examined separately. [K2; K15]
Can a foreign patient file a lawsuit after returning to his or her country?
The legal process in Türkiye can be conducted with the appropriate documents of representation. However, time limits continue to run. Procedures requiring a medical examination or personal attendance should be planned separately; treatment documents and invoices from abroad should be preserved. [K3; K8]
Can a malpractice lawsuit be filed because the hospital bill is high?
The height of a bill does not by itself show malpractice. Whether the fee is contrary to the contract or to the additional-fee rules is examined separately from the allegation of medical error and harm. In the same event, a refund of the charge and malpractice claims may be raised together. [K7; K18; K19]
Does the patient's failure to attend a check-up appointment necessarily lose the case?
No. Whether the recommendation for a check-up was properly communicated, whether the patient was followed at another center and the actual effect of the conduct on the occurrence or worsening of the harm are investigated. The documents and objections that could affect the outcome on this point must be assessed. [K2; K4]
Sources
K1. Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Articles 17, 125 and 129. Access to source.
K2. Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations, Articles 49–56, 66, 72, 74, 112, 115–116, 146–149, 470–478, 502–506 and 526–527. Access to source.
K3. Patient Rights Regulation, especially Articles 15–18 and 21–26; publication of the Ministry of Health. Access to source.
K4. Constitutional Court, Sebiha Çelik, App. No: 2022/18719, January 28, 2026, especially §§ 21–27, 28–34. Full text: De Jure. Access to source.
K5. Constitutional Court, Ergül Karbadağ, App. No: 2021/13476, January 15, 2025; Official Gazette October 2, 2025/33035, especially §§ 20–33. Full text: De Jure. Access to source.
K6. Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/2449, K. 2025/1005, March 12, 2025, reasoning V/B and operative part VI. Full text: De Jure. Access to source.
K7. Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection, Articles 3, 13–16, 68, 73 and 73/A. Access to source.
K8. Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure, Articles 6, 16, 31, 107, 190, 219–220, 266, 281–282, 293, 334 et seq., 345, 361, 400 et seq. Access to source.
K9. Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure, Articles 7, 13, 16/4, 20, 31, 45 and 46. Access to source.
K10. Law No. 3359 on Basic Health Services, Additional Articles 15 and 18; also Law No. 2547 on Higher Education, Article 53. Access to source. Law No. 2547.
K11. Law No. 4483 on the Prosecution of Civil Servants and Other Public Officials, especially Article 9. Access to source.
K12. Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes, Articles 16 and 18/A. Access to source.
K13. Law No. 1219 on the Practice of Medicine and Allied Arts, Additional Article 12; Law No. 6102, Turkish Commercial Code, Articles 5/A, 1478 and 1482. Access to source. Law No. 1219.
K14. Law No. 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data, especially Articles 6 and 12. Access to source.
K15. Law No. 5237, Turkish Penal Code, Articles 7, 22, 73, 85 and 89; Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure, Article 223/8. Amendment to Article 89 TCK: Article 17 of Law No. 7571 dated December 24, 2025. Access to source. Law No. 5271 (CMK). Law No. 7571, Article 17 (text adopted by the Grand National Assembly).
K16. Şaşı, Murat. “The Competent Judicial Forum in Compensation Lawsuits Arising from Health Services Provided in Private Hospitals Cooperating with Foundation Universities”. Uyuşmazlık Yargısı, No. 2, 2025, pp. 1–32; published December 8, 2025. Access to source.
K17. Law No. 5352 on the Criminal Records Act, Articles 4 and 6; Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure, Article 231. Access to source. Law No. 5271 (CMK).
K18. Social Security Institution. “Additional Fee.” Law No. 5510, Article 73, and explanations within the framework of the Health Implementation Communiqué. Access to source.
K19. Social Security Institution. “Health Services for Which No Additional Fee Will Be Charged.” Access to source.