Case Study

Rhinoplasty in Turkey: when one nose surgery turned into four more operations

This English narrative follows the factual sequence in the Turkish court record supplied by the client. It keeps the parties anonymous and does not add fictional facts.

Procedure: Rhinoplasty Court: Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber Decision Date: 7 February 2023

The Story

According to the file, the claimant underwent a rhinoplasty performed by the defendant doctor. After the surgery, she noticed a deviation at the tip of her nose. The same doctor operated again in an effort to correct it, but the result still did not improve in the way she expected.

The record says the claimant then had to seek help elsewhere and underwent two more operations by different doctors. Even after that, the deformity was not treated as a closed chapter in the case file; the court materials state that a fifth operation was still needed to correct the final shape problem.

The patient framed the case as a compensation claim for material and moral loss after an aesthetic result that never matched the agreed purpose.

How the Litigation Moved

Claim The claimant asked for compensation, saying the nose remained deformed despite repeated interventions.
Defense The doctor argued that the outcome was a complication and that there had been no fault.
Lower courts The first-instance court rejected the case, relying on reports that described the process as medically acceptable.
Yargıtay The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment and said the review had been too narrow.

Why the Record Matters

The decision treats cosmetic surgery not as an ordinary treatment agreement, but as a work contract in which the promised result matters. In that framework, it is not enough to say that the surgeon followed technical rules or that a poor outcome can be called a complication.

Yargıtay emphasized that the real question was whether the promised aesthetic result was actually achieved. Because the file showed that the nose deformity remained serious enough to require repeated revision surgeries, the court held that the lower court should have examined fault, damages, and moral compensation through that result-based lens.

← Back to all Case Studies