A malpractice lawsuit is a claim for compensation brought by a person who alleges that they were harmed by conduct in healthcare that breached medical standards or legal obligations. To set up the claim correctly, one must first determine where and in what relationship the intervention took place, what the harm is, which conduct it is attributed to, and which time limit applies. A failed treatment alone does not prove medical error; nor does signing a consent form show that the physician is not liable.
Disputes involving private hospitals and independent physicians in Türkiye are not conducted under the same procedure as disputes arising from healthcare provided in public hospitals. This guide explains together, for patients and their relatives, the conditions of liability, the correct route for an application, the evidence and the heads of compensation. The information shows the general framework; the events and dates in a specific file are assessed separately.
Circumstances in which malpractice arises
In a malpractice claim, the assessment is made on the basis of the medical knowledge at the time of the intervention and the professional care that should have been applied. A more advanced method that emerged later and was not used in the past does not by itself amount to fault. On the other hand, failure to carry out an examination deemed necessary at that time, failure to monitor a critical finding or a delay in referral may give rise to liability. From the standpoint of private law, breach of contract, tort and, where appropriate, other grounds of liability are examined together. [1]
Errors in diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
Delayed or wrong diagnosis, medication and dosage errors, operating on the wrong side, leaving a foreign body in the surgical field, inadequate anaesthesia monitoring and delay in intervention during childbirth may all be subject to malpractice debate. Each of these headings, however, requires concrete facts of the event. For instance, where it is alleged that cancer was diagnosed late, the symptoms at the first visit, the tests requested, the person to whom and the time at which the report reached, the recommended follow-up, and the effect of the delay on the course of the disease are all examined.
Follow-up after treatment is also part of the service. Failure to respond to new complaints reported by the patient, unnecessary postponement of a check-up or failure to assess warning signs may constitute a separate basis of liability, even if the initial intervention was correct. Whether the patient followed the instructions given and had the opportunity for a check-up is also examined in the same file.
The healthcare institution's organisational responsibility
Liability cannot be reduced to the surgeon alone. Shortcomings in staffing, equipment, records, infection control, consultation and referral organisation matter for the hospital. The hospital operator's own obligation and its liability for the conduct of employees or auxiliary persons may rest on different legal grounds. In a private hospital, the scope of the contract and Article 116 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) are assessed; in the context of tort, the provisions on the liability of the employer for its employees are assessed separately. [1]
How to distinguish a complication from malpractice
A complication may refer to undesired outcomes that can arise despite appropriate medical practice. However, the use of this word in a file does not end the review. The prior assessment of the risk, the information given, timely recognition if the risk materialises, and its management through appropriate intervention are each examined separately. [5, 7]
For example, the presence of an infection is not automatic proof of fault. Which precautions were required, whether they were taken, and how the intervention was carried out after symptoms appeared must be investigated. The healthcare institution may argue that the risk materialised despite appropriate precautions; the patient must then show a concrete deficiency in the prevention or follow-up stage. The debate therefore rests not only on the outcome but on the whole process.
What are the conditions of liability for compensation
Generally, a breach of law or contract, harm and an appropriate causal link are determined; fault and the burden of proof are assessed according to the type of liability invoked. In tort, Articles 49–50 of the Turkish Code of Obligations are important; in breach of contract, Article 112; and for the physician's duty of care, Article 506. In a claim based on contract, the debtor's burden of proving the absence of its own fault does not mean that all of the patient's claims are accepted in advance. The patient must establish the factual basis of the relationship and of the alleged breach of obligation, the harm and the causal link. [1]
Causation is decisive especially in files involving a serious illness, several interventions or a prior condition. Harm that could have occurred through the natural course of the disease must be separated from harm added by the delay or the wrong procedure. The defence that “the patient was already seriously ill” requires examination; the explanation that “it happened after the surgery” is not, on its own, sufficient either. The expert should be asked to discuss, on the basis of the records, the different possibilities.
Emergency intervention and negotiorum gestio
Where the patient cannot express their will and the delay poses a serious danger, the basis for the intervention is assessed together with the rules on consent and emergency intervention. In suitable cases where no contractual basis exists, the provisions on negotiorum gestio (vekâletsiz iş görme) in Articles 526–531 of the Turkish Code of Obligations may come into play. The work must be carried out in the patient's interest and in accordance with their presumed will. The invalidity of a contract does not by itself make every intervention lawful. [1, 5]
Article 527 of the Turkish Code of Obligations regulates liability for negligence and takes into account, in assessing liability, action taken to remove a risk of harm. Where action is taken despite a prohibition by the patient that is neither unlawful nor immoral, liability for unforeseen circumstances may also arise. That an emergency intervention is legally permissible does not mean that no liability arises from its careless execution. [1]
Conduct of the patient or of a third party
If the patient's conduct contributed to the occurrence or increase of harm, a reduction under Article 52 of the Turkish Code of Obligations may be considered. Whether the conduct is so serious as to sever the causal link entirely is a different question. Where an independent act of a third party or a claim of force majeure is raised, the foreseeability, preventability and effect on the harm must be made concrete. Every lapse in check-ups, or a later consultation with another physician, does not automatically remove the initial liability. [1]
A complication that occurs despite appropriate care and information may relate to the absence of fault or of a breach of duty. This situation should not always be explained as the severing of the causal link between medical intervention and outcome. The file should state clearly which of the conditions of liability was not met.
Against whom and in which court is the lawsuit filed
Private hospital, clinic and independent physician
Where the patient is not acting for commercial or professional purposes, private healthcare services are usually a consumer transaction. In this framework, the consumer court and the conditions for bringing an action under the Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 (TKHK) come into play. Characterising the contract as an agency (vekâlet) or a contract for work (eser) does not by itself remove the jurisdiction of the consumer court. For claims where no consumer relationship exists, or which are brought on another legal ground, jurisdiction is determined separately. [2]
The hospital, the physician and the clinic operator may not be the same person. The invoice, the patient admission document, the contract and the trade name should be compared. Suing under the brand name on a signboard is not sufficient; the real or legal person legally responsible must be identified. The physician's relationship with the hospital, who undertook which service, and the physician's contribution to the harm all affect the choice of defendant. The existence of several liable persons does not give the right to collect the same damage more than once.
Public hospital and state university
Where the claim concerns defective service arising from the conduct of public healthcare services, the action is in principle brought before the administrative courts against the relevant administration, as a full remedy action (tam yargı davası). A claim arising from a service provided in the course of public duty should not be directed at the physician personally merely because the physician's name is known. The connection with public duty, the status of the institution and the legal basis of the claim are examined. In structures such as foundation (vakıf) university hospitals, where status may be disputed, the judicial route is not chosen merely by the words “university” or “private”. [3, 9]
Subject-matter jurisdiction (görev) and territorial jurisdiction (yetki) are different: the first determines which type of court hears the case; the second determines which court in which place. The consumer's option to sue at their place of residence, and the general and special venue rules, are assessed according to the concrete relationship. It should not be assumed that an action filed on the wrong judicial route can always be corrected later, without limit.
Which applications are required before filing
In disputes arising from private healthcare services that fall within the jurisdiction of the consumer courts, pre-trial mediation is in principle required. Disputes that fall within the jurisdiction of the consumer arbitration committees, and other exceptions in the law, should also be checked. The monetary threshold is set by the official regulation for the year of application; an amount from an old internet article is not used. The final mediation minutes are added to the case file. [2, 4]
For harm caused by an administrative act in public healthcare, an application for compensation to the relevant administration under Article 13 of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK) is essential. Once the claim is refused, or the statutory response period passes, the lawsuit period is calculated. An application to the hospital's patient rights unit, a record with the Presidential Communication Center (CİMER), a complaint to the professional chamber and an application to the public prosecutor each serve different purposes. Making one of these applications does not automatically preserve the time limits for the others. The content of the application and the date on which it reached the proper authority must be documented.
How time limits are calculated in a malpractice lawsuit
There is no single “malpractice limitation period”. The same event may produce different results under contract, tort, defective service and administrative application rules. The length of the period matters, but so do its starting point, suspension, interruption and transitional provisions. [1–4]
| Legal route | Basic time-limit framework | Starting point and key distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Tort | Two and ten years under Article 72 of the Turkish Code of Obligations | The date of harm and the date the liable party became known are distinguished from the date of the act; longer criminal limitation conditions are examined separately. |
| Mandate contract | Five years under Article 147/5 of the Turkish Code of Obligations | The maturity of the claim and the nature of the specific claim are assessed. |
| Defect in a work | Two years under Article 478 of the Turkish Code of Obligations for works other than immovables; twenty years in cases of gross fault | Delivery and the defect regime are important; not every medical harm can be reduced to this provision. |
| Defective service | As a rule, two years under Article 16 of the Consumer Protection Law (TKHK) | Longer statutory or contractual periods are reserved; there is an exception for gross fault or fraudulent concealment. |
| Administrative act | One year from learning of the act and five years from the act, for an application under Article 13 of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK) | After the refusal notice, or after thirty days without a response, the general sixty-day lawsuit period is calculated separately. |
Where harm is discovered late or develops over time, the date of learning can be a serious point of dispute. The first symptom, the definitive diagnosis, the understanding of permanent damage and the knowledge of the link to the responsible party may not all fall on the same day. Which of these is legally decisive is examined according to the file. Sending a message to the physician or issuing a notary notice does not, in every case, interrupt the limitation period. The time-limit assessment should not be postponed while conversations continue.
Which documents should be prepared
Under Article 16 of the Patient Rights Regulation (Hasta Hakları Yönetmeliği), the patient may examine the records relating to their health status and obtain copies. Relying only on an e-Nabız (national health record system) printout is not enough; operation, anaesthesia, nursing observation, medication administration, consultation and discharge records may also be needed. For radiological images, not only the reports but the original digital files suitable for examination should be requested. [5]
For practical filing, the following documents can be kept separately:
- Condition before the procedure and earlier medical records.
- Contract, offer, consent documents, invoices and payments.
- Intervention and follow-up records, images, prescriptions and correspondence.
- Subsequent treatments, loss of earnings, care needs and expenses incurred.
- Applications, notifications and a short chronological timeline of events.
For evidence that may be deleted or altered, the taking of evidence under Article 400 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) may be considered. This procedure is not a decision that wins the compensation claim; it records a particular situation. Necessary treatment must not be delayed in order to preserve evidence. Methods of proof are explained separately in the second article in this series. [6]
What an expert review and a real decision show
Determining the medical standard requires specialist knowledge. The expert should assess the records and the parties' substantive objections, and explain why a particular medical conduct was appropriate or erroneous. The legal characterisation and the decision belong to the court. The reasoning of the report, and the questions it leaves unanswered, are as important as its conclusion. [6]
Constitutional Court, Elif Öztürk, Application No. 2021/22380, May 14, 2025: In a file alleging nerve damage after a biopsy in the neck region, the expert reports had assessed the matter as a complication. The objection that the applicant had not been adequately informed of the risks had not been properly addressed in the judicial decisions. The Constitutional Court found that the right under Article 17 of the Constitution had been violated because of this incomplete examination, and ordered a retrial. [7]
This decision does not say that every nerve damage after a biopsy is medical malpractice; it requires that the informed-consent objection be examined separately from technical fault. Nor does the Constitutional Court decision mean that a lawsuit against a physician will certainly be accepted. Concrete records must show which risk the patient was informed about, when, and how.
Which material and moral compensation can be claimed
In cases of bodily harm, medical and rehabilitation expenses, loss of earnings, reduced working capacity and impairment of the economic future may arise. For care, rehabilitation, transport and future necessary treatment, the need, its duration and a reasonable cost must be proven. In the event of death, funeral expenses, treatment before death, loss of earnings and loss of maintenance are assessed. The right to claim loss of maintenance is not limited to being an heir; an actual or expected maintenance relationship is important. [1]
Moral damages are determined taking into account the gravity of the event and the bodily or psychological effects on the person. In cases of serious bodily harm or death, the claims of relatives may be examined under Article 56 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. It cannot be said that every relative is automatically entitled in every event. Compensation amounts found on the internet are not a tariff for a new file.
How the 2026 amendments affect the claim
As of October 11, 2026, Article 107 of the consolidated Code of Civil Procedure text has been repealed. The current Article 109/4 regulates that, where a divisible claim is partly sued, the claim may be increased once in the same action before the investigation phase (tahkikat) ends, and that for the increased part the limitation period is deemed interrupted on the date of the action. For this reason, the statement in older texts that “every file is opened as an indeterminate claim action” should not be repeated as a current method. The procedural stage of an ongoing file, and its application in time, are examined separately. [6, 10]
Article 55 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, as amended in 2026, separates the start of interest for known and unknown periods in losses of earning capacity and losses of maintenance, and regulates the proportional offsetting of payments made for performance before the investigation phase. A single interest start date for all heads of damage, or a single offsetting method for all payments, should not be used. The calculation report should show why the heads and periods have been separated. [1]
How a criminal investigation, insurance and collection are assessed
A claim of negligent injury or negligent homicide arising from a medical procedure may become the subject of a criminal investigation. For medical procedures and practices under supplementary Article 18 of Law No. 3359 on Basic Health Services (Sağlık Hizmetleri Temel Kanunu), the permit procedure of the Professional Responsibility Board (Mesleki Sorumluluk Kurulu) is important; separate rules apply to the persons covered by Article 53 of Law No. 2547. This permit regulation is not a general permission to bring every compensation action. The purposes and evidentiary assessments of the criminal, disciplinary and compensation processes are distinct. [9, 12]
Objections to decisions of the Professional Responsibility Board may be brought before the Ankara Regional Administrative Court (Ankara Bölge İdare Mahkemesi) under supplementary Article 18 of Law No. 3359. Under Article 9 of Law No. 4483, the ten-day period running from notification, and the persons entitled to apply, should be checked. A decision refusing permission for an investigation, an acquittal in a criminal case and a dismissal of the compensation claim are not the same result. The procedure applicable to the application, and the date of notification, must be determined at the start of the file. [9, 11]
Having professional liability insurance does not mean that every item of damage will be covered without limit. The policy period, the conditions of the event and notification, the scope of cover and the limits are examined. Under Article 1478 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK), a claim can be made directly against the insurer; the jurisdictional conditions and the prior application requirements for an action against the insurer are determined separately. [8]
Where consumer cases benefit from an exemption from court fees, this does not mean that the risk of expert fees, notification costs, translation or opposing counsel's fees is removed entirely. The conditions for legal aid, the advance on expenses required and the possibility of collection should be assessed. In suitable cases where there is convincing evidence and economic need, a request for provisional payment under Article 76 of the Turkish Code of Obligations may be considered. The need for enforcement, appeal and finality is assessed according to the nature of the judgment; winning a lawsuit and the actual collection of money are not the same stage.
Conclusion
In a malpractice file, the first decisive task is to explain the harm with medical records and to apply to the right person, in the right judicial route, within the time limit. When consent, complication, the treatment standard and the calculation of harm are treated as separate questions, the strengths and weaknesses of the file become visible. The most useful starting point for a patient is to continue the necessary treatment, preserve the records and have the time limits calculated without delay according to the type of application.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can compensation be obtained for every failed operation?
No. The link between the conduct giving rise to liability and the failed outcome is examined. Technical application, information, follow-up and, where present, any undertaking as to the result are assessed together.
Does signing a consent form remove the right to sue?
No. It is examined whether the form explained the specific procedure and its risks. It cannot be concluded that medical fault was permitted in advance, without limit.
Is a complaint to the public prosecutor enough for compensation?
No. A criminal investigation does not replace a compensation action. Administrative applications, mediation and lawsuit time limits are followed separately.
What can be done if hospital records are not provided?
The written request and the response are kept. Obtaining the necessary records through the court, the submission of documents and, if the conditions are met, the taking of evidence are considered. Missing records do not by themselves mean that all claims have been proven.
If the amount of compensation is unknown at the start, can a lawsuit not be filed?
It can be filed, but the method of claiming must follow the current procedural provisions. The claim increase under Article 109/4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the former practice under Article 107 should not be confused.
How long does a lawsuit take?
It depends on the record, expert, notification and appeal stages of the file. A definite end date or result cannot be promised before the documents have been reviewed.
Sources and legal bases
[1] Republic of Türkiye, Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), in particular Articles 49–56, 72, 76, 112–116, 146–149, 470–478, 506 and 526–531. Current text.
[2] Republic of Türkiye, Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 (Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun), Articles 3, 13–16, 73, 73/A and 83. Current text.
[3] Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), Articles 7, 9 and 13. Current text.
[4] Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Article 18/A. Current text.
[5] Ministry of Health, Patient Rights Regulation (Hasta Hakları Yönetmeliği), in particular Articles 15–18, 24 and 31. Ministry text.
[6] Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Articles 109, 190, 219–221, 266, 281–282, 293 and 400–406. Current text.
[7] Constitutional Court, First Section, Elif Öztürk, Application No. 2021/22380, May 14, 2025, in particular paragraphs 22–27 and the operative part. Official decision record; accessible full-text transcript.
[8] Republic of Türkiye, Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (Türk Ticaret Kanunu), Articles 1478 and 1482–1484. Current text.
[9] Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 3359 on Basic Health Services (Sağlık Hizmetleri Temel Kanunu), supplementary Article 18. Current text.
[10] Ministry of Justice, announcement regarding the publication of Law No. 7589 in the Official Gazette dated 31.07.2026. Announcement and Official Gazette link.
[11] Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 4483 on the Trial of Civil Servants and Other Public Officials (Memurlar ve Diğer Kamu Görevlilerinin Yargılanması Hakkında Kanun), Article 9. Current text.
[12] Republic of Türkiye, Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (Türk Ceza Kanunu), Articles 85 and 89. Current text.