The Story
The file says the claimant was living in Germany and contacted the defendant doctor because of sagging in the arms, legs, and abdominal area after weight issues. She came to Turkey for surgery after being told she was a suitable candidate. According to the claim, she was examined the day after arrival, told that only very small arm scars would remain, and then signed documents without proper reading before same-day surgery.
She later said the post-operative impact did not fade. She described persistent pain and swelling, limited follow-up with the doctor, and severe deterioration after returning to Germany. The record states that she spent 25 days in intensive care there, suffered strength loss in her arms, could no longer continue her profession, and experienced major psychological collapse because her body looked worse rather than better.
The Court Conflict
The first-instance court and the regional court rejected the claim, relying on expert material that said the surgery had improved her appearance and that the consent forms were sufficient. Yargıtay disagreed with the legal lens used by those courts.
The majority said the file still had to be assessed as an aesthetic work-contract dispute: was the promised result delivered, and was the patient properly protected in the process? A dissenting opinion would have upheld the rejection, but the majority sent the matter back for a fuller evaluation.
Why It Matters
The record is especially important for international patient cases. It shows that a Turkish court may still look closely at aesthetic promises, informed consent, post-operative management, and the real-life consequences abroad, even when lower courts accept medical reports favorable to the doctor.