Aesthetic Surgery Malpractice in Turkey: Legal Rights and Compensation for Plastic Surgery Operations
I. Introduction
Aesthetic surgery is rapidly transforming from a niche service into a widely accessible and technologically advanced field of modern medicine. Driven by innovation and shifting societal norms, cosmetic and plastic surgery procedures are now commonly sought medical services globally.
Turkey has emerged as a leading center for this trend, positioning itself as a major hub for health tourism.However, the increasing prevalence of aesthetic procedures is simultaneously generating a rise in complex legal disputes, and especially aesthetic surgery malpractice cases. These cases often involve claims for material and non-material damages stemming from complications, the failure to meet patient expectations, or clear instances of medical errors and negligence as defined as malpractice.
For foreign patients utilizing health tourism services, the legal remedies available have become a subject of critical importance. Determining fair compensation for grievances following a botched aesthetic surgery in Turkey requires a comprehensive evaluation under Turkish law, particularly the Law of Obligations, the Regulation on Patient Rights, and other pertinent legislation governing medical procedures. This analysis is essential to balancing the rights of the patient with the responsibilities of the provider within the framework of international health travel.
II. Legal Framework Governing Aesthetic Surgery Malpractice
2.1. Definition of Malpractice
Malpractice refers to a process that encompasses medical application errors resulting from a lack of due diligence, and simultaneously denotes the misuse of duty. Malpractice is the form in which a performance is not rendered properly within the context of the patient-surgeon relationship. The causes of malpractice include the lack of knowledge and inattentiveness of the doctor who performs the diagnosis and treatment.
The fact that a medical operation was performed with the patient’s valid consent and in adherence to fundamental conditions of legality will not automatically lead to the doctor’s immunity from liability. The surgeon’s liability for compensation will arise if they act contrary to the contemporary standards required by medical science and practice while performing the procedure, and the patient suffers damage as a result of this non-compliance.
As for regulatory definitions, Article 11 of the Regulation on Patient Rights defines malpractice as: “Diagnosis and treatment that are contrary to the principles of medicine and the provisions of legislation related to medicine, or which are deceptive in nature, shall not be performed.” The most critical point addressed here is that the medical intervention applied by the physician not being compliant with the requirements of medical science according to current medical technology, providing a service that falls below medical standards, or failing to provide any service at all, is evaluated as Malpractice.
2.2 Legal Standing of Aesthetic Surgery Operations & Malpractice
Aesthetic surgery is legally distinguished from procedures that are solely therapeutic or reconstructive. This voluntary and result-fixated characteristic fundamentally shapes the legal relationship between the surgeon and the patient, lending it the quality of a contract of work under Turkish Law of Obligations.
By its very nature, aesthetic intervention establishes a “Contract of Work” relationship between the doctor and the patient. This is because, unlike an ordinary medical operation, the doctor in this case promises a definite result. This is also echoed in the case precedents of the Court of Cassation in Turkey, where the court repeatedly rules that one of the important issues that distinguishes the Contract for a Work from other service contracts is the responsibility for the result, meaning the contractor’s commitment to produce an outcome in line with the parties’ will.
For the aesthetic surgeon, the most important obligation arising from the contract with the patient is to “create the work.” The aesthetic surgeon also has certain ancillary obligations arising from this contract that serve the performance of the principal obligation, such as diagnosing and selecting and applying the most appropriate treatment, performing the work personally, enlightening the patient (informed consent), showing loyalty and diligence, recording (archiving), and maintaining privacy [overview of the new regulation recently adopted in Turkey, expanding the doctors’ and medical facilities burden and liability for obtaining informed consent and ensuring patient privacy can be found here]. In order for a treatment to be considered compliant with the contract, the surgeon must also adhere to these ancillary obligations.
This structure constitutes a significant distinction when assessing the surgeon’s liability. Unlike a general contract of mandate, where the doctor undertakes the obligation to provide care diligently without guaranteeing a specific outcome, the aesthetic surgery agreement carries a strong obligation of result. The surgeon, therefore, is liable not only for negligent performance but also for the failure to deliver the agreed-upon aesthetic result, unless they can prove the failure was due to circumstances outside their control.
2.3 Resulting Health Complications: Aesthetic Surgery Malpractice Extending Beyond Aesthetic Failure
While the primary liability in plastic surgery often focuses on the failure to achieve the promised aesthetic outcome (breach of the contract of work), a more severe form of malpractice arises when the procedure results in actual physical harm, injury, or a deterioration of the patient’s health.
In such cases, the claim shifts from a simple failure of result to a clear instance of medical negligence where the surgeon has demonstrably breached their professional duty of care. This occurs when the health issue—such as an infection, severe nerve damage, life-threatening complications, or permanent functional impairment—is a direct consequence of a faulty procedure, improper aftercare, or a surgical error.
Under Turkish law, these claims are assessed rigorously, often invoking the provisions related to tort liability alongside the contractual claim. The patient is entitled to seek compensation for all resulting damages, including:
- Material Damages: Covering costs for subsequent corrective surgeries, extended hospital stays, loss of earnings, and other financial expenditures related to the injury.
- Non-Material (Moral) Damages: Compensating for the physical pain, suffering, and distress caused by the health complication and its impact on the patient’s quality of life.
Depending on the facts of each case, the existence of a significant health complication may establish a strong causal link between the surgeon’s action (or inaction) and the patient’s detriment, leading to a much more straightforward—and often higher—assessment of liability for malpractice.
III. Determining Liability and Compensation in Plastic Surgery Malpractice Claims
In order for an aesthetic surgeon to be held liable for a breach of the treatment contract, the surgeon’s conduct must be fault-based, arising either from intent or negligence. These are the two primary forms of fault recognized under Turkish law. Intent exists where the surgeon knowingly and willingly causes an unlawful or harmful result. Negligence, on the other hand, occurs where the surgeon does not intend the unlawful result, but fails to exercise the level of care and diligence required by professional and medical standards.
For liability to arise, the patient must have suffered damage as a result of the surgeon’s wrongful conduct. Damage may be “material” a reduction in the patient’s financial assets; or “moral” a reduction in the patient’s emotional well-being, dignity, or enjoyment of life.
Material damage includes both actual financial loss (e.g., the cost of a corrective surgery following a botched aesthetic procedure) and loss of earnings (e.g., inability to work due to pain or complications caused by the failed operation). Whereas moral damage can include emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, or psychological suffering resulting from a failed plastic surgery. In such cases, the purpose of moral compensation is not to restore financial loss, but to provide a measure of emotional relief for the patient.
Establishing a successful claim for damages, whether for a failed aesthetic result or actual physical harm, is fundamentally contingent upon proving a direct causal link between the surgeon’s act or omission and the sustained damage.
However, the burden of proving harm can be complicated by the patient’s own subsequent actions. It is important to note that the surgeon’s liability may be entirely negated, or significantly reduced, if the patient’s conduct is found to have broken the chain of causation, which can happen in cases where the patient fails adhere to post-op instructions, negligently performs self-care, and/or undergoes secondary corrective procedures without obtaining a
IV. Conclusion
When considering a malpractice claim arising from an aesthetic procedure in Turkey, the central legal question is almost always whether there is a clear chain of causal link between the original intervention and the damage suffered. Dissatisfaction with the aesthetic outcome alone is not sufficient; the patient must be able to show, usually through expert evidence, that the surgeon’s conduct fell below contemporary medical standards and that this failure directly caused the material and/or moral damage claimed.
For this reason, patients should, as a rule, obtain a detailed medical assessment and report confirming malpractice before undergoing any secondary corrective surgery or additional interventions in another clinic or country. Subsequent procedures may obscure or break the causal link, allowing the original surgeon or clinic to argue that later interventions caused or aggravated the damage. Securing an early expert report, together with photographs, records and other documentation, is therefore critical to preserving the integrity of the claim and maximizing the chances of a successful compensation action under Turkish law.
