When a patient suffers harm as a result of a healthcare provider’s failure to meet the standards expected of the medical profession, Turkish law provides several legal pathways through which compensation may be sought. Medical malpractice, referred to in Turkish legal terminology as tıbbi uygulama hatası or malpraktis, encompasses a wide range of situations including misdiagnosis, errors in surgical technique, incorrect medication, failure to obtain informed consent, and delayed or inadequate treatment. The legal framework governing these claims draws from multiple branches of law, and the appropriate procedural route depends critically on whether the treatment was received in a public or private healthcare setting.
The definition applied in practice by Turkish courts and professional bodies follows the standard established by the Turkish Medical Association, which characterizes malpractice as any act or omission by a physician or healthcare professional that deviates from the accepted standards of medical knowledge and skill and causes harm to the patient. This standard centers on whether the practitioner’s conduct conformed to what a competent professional in the same field would have done under the same circumstances.
Legal Foundations of Medical Malpractice Claims
Turkish law does not contain a single unified statute governing medical malpractice liability. Instead, claims are grounded in one of several provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, or in administrative law principles where public healthcare institutions are involved. The applicable legal basis determines the procedural route, the burden of proof, and in certain respects the statute of limitations.
The most commonly invoked basis for malpractice claims arising from treatment in private healthcare settings is Article 49 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, which establishes general tortious liability.
Article 49 of the Turkish Code of Obligations: A person who causes harm to another through a wrongful and culpable act is obliged to compensate that harm.
To succeed on a tort-based malpractice claim, the plaintiff must establish four elements: the existence of a wrongful act or omission on the part of the defendant, fault on the defendant’s part in the form of negligence or intent, actual damage suffered by the patient, and a causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the damage. The burden of proving all four elements rests with the patient as claimant.
In addition to tortious liability, malpractice claims may also be grounded in contractual theories. The legal nature of the contract between a patient and a physician is generally characterized in Turkish law as a contract for the performance of services, governed by the mandate contract provisions of Articles 502 and following of the Turkish Code of Obligations. Under a mandate contract, the physician undertakes to use best efforts and professional skill in providing treatment but does not guarantee a particular outcome. This means that in standard therapeutic procedures, the failure to achieve a desired medical result does not by itself establish liability. The physician’s duty is one of diligence, not of result.
Article 506 of the Turkish Code of Obligations: The mandatary is obliged to carry out the undertaking entrusted to it in a loyal and diligent manner and to protect the interests of the mandator.
An important exception to this rule applies in the field of aesthetic and elective procedures. Turkish courts, following established Court of Cassation precedent, have consistently classified procedures such as rhinoplasty, facelifts, breast augmentation, hair transplants, dental implants, and similar cosmetic interventions as work contracts under Article 470 of the Turkish Code of Obligations rather than mandate contracts. Under a work contract, the contractor undertakes to produce a specific result, and the failure to deliver that result — regardless of whether a technical complication intervened — gives rise to liability. This distinction has significant practical consequences for patients who underwent elective procedures and sustained unsatisfactory outcomes.
Claims Against Public Healthcare Institutions
The legal framework shifts considerably when the alleged malpractice occurred in a public hospital, a state university hospital, or any other healthcare facility operated under public authority. In these cases, the claim does not proceed before the civil courts but is instead pursued through the administrative judiciary under the principles of State liability.
The constitutional basis for State liability in Turkey requires that patients harmed by defective public services first exhaust administrative channels before resorting to litigation. A patient or the patient’s family must submit a written compensation claim to the relevant public authority, which is typically the Ministry of Health or the relevant university rectorate in the case of a university hospital. The administration has thirty days to respond. If the administration rejects the claim, or if thirty days elapse without a response, the applicant may file a full remedy lawsuit before the Administrative Court within sixty days of the rejection or the expiry of the waiting period.
In administrative proceedings, liability is analyzed under the concept of service defect, which examines whether the public health service was performed late, inadequately, or not at all. Importantly, in the administrative law framework the patient is not required to prove individual fault on the part of a specific physician. It is sufficient to demonstrate that the service provided fell below the standard that a properly functioning public healthcare system should have delivered.
The Professional Responsibility Council Under Law No. 7406
A significant structural development in Turkish medical malpractice law took place with the enactment of Law No. 7406 in May 2022, which added Supplementary Article 18 to the Basic Law on Health Services No. 3359 and established the Professional Responsibility Council, known as the Mesleki Sorumluluk Kurulu, within the Ministry of Health. This body plays two distinct roles in the malpractice context.
The first role concerns criminal investigations. Under the current framework, a criminal investigation targeting a physician, dentist, or other licensed health professional for acts performed in the course of professional practice may only be initiated after the Professional Responsibility Council grants its approval. Without this investigative authorization, the public prosecutor cannot proceed with the investigation. This gate-keeping function was introduced with the stated aim of reducing the professional anxiety created by the volume of criminal complaints filed against healthcare workers and ensuring that frivolous or unfounded complaints are filtered at an early stage.
The second role concerns the recourse mechanism in public hospital cases. When the State pays compensation following a successful administrative malpractice claim, the question arises whether the responsible healthcare professional should personally bear part of the cost. The Council evaluates whether the professional’s conduct amounted to deliberate misconduct or gross negligence sufficient to justify recourse by the administration. A final criminal conviction for abuse of official capacity is required before recourse can be ordered. This structure means that the Council’s involvement has no bearing on the patient’s right to file a compensation claim. Whether against the institution directly or through the administrative courts, the patient’s access to compensation proceedings remains unaffected by the Council’s approval requirements, which govern criminal investigations and recourse proceedings, not civil liability.
Establishing Fault and the Role of Expert Witnesses
The central evidentiary challenge in any malpractice case is the assessment of fault. Courts are not equipped to evaluate whether a particular medical decision or procedure conformed to professional standards without expert assistance. In virtually all malpractice cases, the court appoints one or more medical expert witnesses drawn from the relevant specialty, or it refers the case to the Council of Forensic Medicine, known as the Adli Tıp Kurumu, for an institutional opinion.
The expert’s task is to assess whether the defendant’s conduct met the standard of care applicable to the situation. This involves examining the patient’s medical records, the treatment notes, the operative reports, any imaging or laboratory results, and the post-treatment course. The expert then offers an opinion on whether any deviation from accepted medical practice occurred and, if so, whether that deviation caused or contributed to the patient’s harm.
Informed consent is a distinct and frequently contested issue in malpractice proceedings. Turkish law and the Patient Rights Regulation require that a patient be provided with sufficient information about the nature, risks, alternatives, and expected outcomes of any proposed intervention before giving consent. The consent must be given freely and without coercion, and in writing for surgical procedures. A physician who proceeds with a procedure without obtaining proper informed consent may be held liable even if the procedure itself was technically performed without error, since the patient’s right to make an autonomous and informed decision was not respected.
Types of Compensation Available
A successful malpractice claim may give rise to both material and moral compensation. Material compensation is designed to restore the economic position the patient would have occupied had the malpractice not occurred. In cases of bodily injury, this includes treatment costs, expenses incurred in obtaining corrective care, loss of earnings during the period of incapacity, and, where the harm is permanent, the present value of the reduction in the patient’s future earning capacity. In cases of death, surviving dependents may claim for the loss of financial support they would have received from the deceased.
Article 54 of the Turkish Code of Obligations: In cases of bodily injury, the damages to be compensated include treatment costs, loss of earnings, diminution of earning capacity, and, where applicable, future economic losses.
Moral compensation is available to the injured patient and, in cases of death, to close family members who suffered grief and psychological harm as a result of the loss. The amount of moral compensation is determined by the court on an equitable basis, taking into account the severity of the harm, the degree of fault, and the personal circumstances of the claimant. There is no statutory cap on moral compensation in Turkish law, and in serious cases — particularly those involving permanent disability, loss of limb, or death — courts have awarded substantial sums.
Statute of Limitations
The time limits for bringing a malpractice claim vary depending on the legal basis invoked. For tort-based claims under Article 49 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, the limitation period is two years from the date the patient becomes aware of both the harm and the identity of the responsible party, subject to an absolute outer limit of ten years from the date of the harmful act regardless of the patient’s actual knowledge.
Article 72 of the Turkish Code of Obligations: The right to compensation in tort cases becomes time-barred two years from the date the injured party learned of the damage and the identity of the person liable, and in any event ten years from the date the harmful act occurred.
For contractual claims arising from private hospital treatment, the general ten-year limitation period under Article 146 of the Turkish Code of Obligations applies. For claims against public institutions pursued through the administrative courts, the applicable deadlines are governed by administrative procedural law, and the sixty-day filing period following the administration’s rejection of the preliminary claim is strictly enforced.
Given the critical importance of timing and the need to preserve evidence — including medical records that institutions may argue are no longer available — patients who believe they have been harmed by a medical error are advised to seek legal guidance as early as possible. Medical records may be obtained by the patient or their lawyer directly from the healthcare facility or through a court order.
Medical Malpractice Lawyer in Istanbul – Attorney Ozan Soylu
Attorney Ozan Soylu is a practicing lawyer based in Istanbul, advising patients and their families in medical malpractice compensation claims against private clinics, private hospitals, and public healthcare institutions under Turkish law. His practice covers the full scope of health law litigation, from the preliminary administrative phase through civil and administrative court proceedings, including coordination with medical experts and the forensic medicine process.
For all legal matters concerning Turkish law, you can reach out to Attorney Ozan Soylu. Legal consultancy and representation services are provided with a dedicated approach for foreign nationals. To submit your questions, contact us.
Leave a Comment