The Story
The claimant said she met the defendant doctor for a breast-reduction operation. The first surgery took place on 1 July 2017. Around two months later, after the early post-operative effects eased, she said her breasts looked even larger than before and that the wounds had still not healed properly.
A second operation, described in the file as a revision, followed on 3 March 2018. The claimant said that revision also failed and that the scars became even more severe afterward. The defense answered that the signed documents described not a reduction, but a breast enlargement and lifting procedure. That dispute stayed in the file.
Why Yargıtay Intervened
Lower courts rejected the claim after focusing on consent and expert views that the scarring related to the patient’s tissue response rather than medical fault. Yargıtay said that approach was incomplete. In an aesthetic work-contract case, dark and persistent scarring cannot be dismissed simply because a technical error was not proven in the narrow medical sense.
The court held that if the promised aesthetic outcome was not achieved and the intervention left visible, disadvantageous scarring, the file had to be reconsidered in terms of defective performance and compensation.