The Story
The claimant sought rhinoplasty in May 2011 and was operated on by the defendant doctor. She later said the expected correction never came. Instead, she described persistent deformity, scar-like marks, swelling, and further aesthetic deterioration.
According to the file, the same doctor performed two more operations in September 2011 and July 2012, yet the claimant said the nose still did not improve and additional facial effects appeared. She then sought both pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation.
Why the File Became Legally Important
The first-instance court dismissed the claim by relying on an Adli Tıp report that treated the post-operative condition as a complication and found no attributable medical fault.
But another expert source in the same file pointed in a different direction: a university plastic-surgery panel reportedly noted findings suggesting insufficient lateral osteotomies and questioned the approach. A separate health-board report also recorded a permanent disability percentage linked to the nasal deformity.
Outcome
Yargıtay did not decide final liability at that stage. Instead, it held that the contradiction between expert reports had to be resolved first under Article 15/f of Law No. 2659, including review by the Adli Tıp General Council when necessary.
Because the lower court entered judgment without curing that evidentiary conflict, the dismissal was quashed.