The Story
According to the record, the claimant first went to the hospital for rhinoplasty. There, she says the defendant doctor persuaded her to add a facelift and abdominal fat-removal procedure as part of a broader beautification plan. The surgeries were carried out together, and she was discharged on 4 May 2012.
Afterward, the claimant described a facial result she did not want: asymmetry between the two sides of her face, a right upper eyelid that stayed more open than the other, and ongoing tearing from the right eye. She also said her abdomen became misshapen after the fat-removal procedure, with irregular bumps and distortions, and that inflammation and bleeding continued for seven to eight months after surgery.
What Made the File Legally Significant
The court record goes beyond the classic question of medical fault. It stresses that the interventions were elective and aesthetic, which pushed the analysis toward a result-oriented contract model. The patient was not simply buying effort; she was paying for a promised improvement in appearance.
Yargıtay also highlighted a crucial consent problem: the file apparently contained a consent form for the facelift, but no matching consent record for the abdominal fat-removal procedure. That gap mattered because the harmful post-operative abdominal outcome was one of the central complaints.
Outcome
The lower court had rejected the claim. Yargıtay reversed that result. It said the record had to be examined through the combined lenses of informed consent, complication management, and whether the surgeon actually delivered the promised aesthetic result. On the facts summarized in the file, the claimant’s damage claims should have been reassessed instead of being dismissed.