The Story
The record says the claimant had facial stitches after a bicycle accident in 2011. Years later, she consulted a plastic surgeon about scar revision. During that meeting, she says she was told the scar could be revised so that it would remain very faint and that healing would be completed within roughly three to six months.
She underwent surgery on 29 January 2020. Instead of fading, the mark allegedly became wider and bright red by the end of six months. On the doctor’s advice, she waited another three months, then had a second operation. Even after the second procedure, the file says there was no meaningful improvement.
What the Claim Focused On
- The claimant said the appearance was worse than before the revision.
- She sought both material and moral damages and argued that the visible scar caused lasting harm.
- The defense relied on informed consent, medical acceptability, and the position that the scar could never have disappeared completely.
Why Yargıtay Reversed the Rejection
The lower courts had accepted expert opinions describing the outcome as medically acceptable. Yargıtay took a different approach. It said the file had to be examined through the law of a work contract, because the intervention was aesthetic and result-oriented.
In that framework, the decisive question was not only whether the surgeon committed a classic medical fault, but whether the promised beneficial result had been delivered. The court held that the surgeon had not fully and properly delivered the promised outcome and that the resulting work had to be treated as defective.