In Istanbul and across Turkey, serious complications may arise following cosmetic liposuction (fat removal) surgeries as a result of malpractice, complications, or inadequate postoperative care. Conditions such as permanent deformity, asymmetry, skin necrosis, infection, delayed wound healing, scarring, and the need for revision can cause physical and psychological trauma for the patient.

Compensation lawsuit due to medical malpractice in liposuction surgery, can be established on multiple legal grounds depending on the specific circumstances of the case. Constructing alternative claims against all liable parties is a prudent choice. This is because in cosmetic liposuction procedures, the physician, the private hospital/clinic, and in some cases, the healthcare entity that marketed the procedure or is a party to the contract, may fall within the scope of joint liability.

This guide comprehensively explains the legal grounds, procedure, evidentiary strategy, Court of Cassation jurisprudence, and litigation tactics to be applied in medical malpractice liposuction lawsuits in Istanbul.

Primary Legal Grounds in Malperformed Liposuction Surgery

Legal Basis	Legal Basis	Essential Condition	Type of Liability
Contract for Work and Liability for Defects	TBK (Turkish Code of Obligations) Articles 230-242	Aesthetic liposuction entails the obligation to achieve the result corresponding to the agreed-upon purpose	Undertaking of a specific result; liability for defects
Consumer Transaction and Defective Service	Law No. 6502 on the Protection of Consumers (TKHK) Articles 3, 13, and 15	If a private clinic/hospital provides services for commercial purposes, the patient holds the status of a consumer	Re-performance of the service, refund of the price, price reduction, compensation
Breach of Contract and Duty of Care	TBK (Turkish Code of Obligations) Articles 112-114	Performance of surgery contrary to medical standards; negligence of postoperative follow-up obligation	Compensation; performance expenses
Tort Liability	TBK Art. 49	The physician/hospital has engaged in unlawful and negligent conduct	Full compensation; bodily and non-pecuniary damages
Lack of Informed Consent	TBK Art. 27, Art. 49; Basic Law on Health Services Art. 4	Risks, alternatives, and complications have not been explained concretely	Absence of free consent; unlawfulness; compensation

Attention: “Faulty liposuction” is not limited solely to medical malpractice. Liability also arises from the application of surgical techniques contrary to medical rules, the extraction of fat from inappropriate body areas or in inappropriate amounts, permanent deformity, inadequate response to infections, delayed or improper management of complications, failure to obtain sufficient informed consent, and failure to fulfill promotional promises.

Procedural Law Analysis: Jurisdiction, Venue, and Statute of Limitations

Jurisdiction: Consumer Court vs. Court of First Instance

Defendant Status	Legal Relationship	Competent Court
Private hospital / Aesthetic clinic	Paid healthcare service; consumer transaction	Consumer Court
Freelance physician (party to the contract)	Commercial service; consumer transaction	Consumer Court (mostly)
Freelance physician (agency relationship only)	Professional consulting; private law	Civil Court of First Instance
Public hospital / University hospital	Public service; allegation of service defect	Administrative Court
Physician + Private hospital as joint defendants	Consumer transaction; combined delivery of healthcare services	Consumer Court

Pursuant to Article 3 of the Law on the Protection of Consumers No. 6502’nun, a consumer transaction is any contract and legal transaction established between consumers and persons acting for commercial or professional purposes in the service market. The provision of services by an aesthetic clinic or hospital for a fee brings the transaction within the scope of a consumer transaction.

However, public hospitalin liposuction surgeries performed (albeit rarely), the jurisdiction of the administrative judiciary comes into play. If there is an allegation of service defect against a public hospital, Abditory Procedure Law No. 2577 provisions shall apply and At the Administrative Court a lawsuit shall be filed.

Competent Court and the Venue Rule in Favor of the Consumer

Consumer lawsuits may be filed at the consumer court in the consumer's place of residence. This is Art. 73/5 of Law No. 6502 (TKHK) a special venue rule introduced in favor of the consumer by the provision.

Options for a patient filing a liposuction lawsuit in Istanbul:

The Consumer Court at their own place of residence (in favor of the consumer),
The Consumer Court at the place of residence of the defendant hospital/clinic or physician (general jurisdiction),
If all parties are located in Beylikdüzü according to the petition, the Beylikdüzü Consumer Court.

If the consumer's place of residence is Ankara, Izmir, or another city, they may file the consumer law lawsuit in Istanbul at the court in their own city.

Mandatory Mediation: Consumer Court Requirement

In compensation lawsuits to be heard before the Consumer Court, before filing a lawsuit, the mandatory mediation process must be completed. In the event that an agreement cannot be reached through mediation, the final minutes drawn up must definitely be attached to the statement of claim.

A lawsuit filed without the mediation minutes is dismissed. Therefore, the patient's attorney must immediately initiate the mediation process and clearly state all claims (refund of the price, treatment expenses, revision costs, loss of labor force, non-pecuniary damages) in the mediation petition.

In claims alleging a service defect originating from a public hospital administrative application and administrative jurisdiction procedures are evaluated separately; the mandatory mediation regime in consumer disputes does not apply directly.

Statute of Limitations: Different Periods Based on the Selected Legal Ground

Legal Basis	Limitation Period	Start Date	Note
Tort Compensation	2 years (in any case 10 years)	As of the date of awareness of the damage and the responsible party	Aesthetic damage may become apparent later
Breach of Contract	10 years	The date the receivable becomes due and payable	Refund of the fee, medical treatment expenses
Defective Service (TKHK)	2 years (in favor of the consumer)	As of the emergence of the defect	Shorter in consumer court
Criminal Law Act (Negligence, Fraud)	Statute of limitations in criminal law (5-15 years)	Date of the act	May remain valid on the criminal record

TBK m.72 governs that claims for compensation based on tort must be brought within two years from the date on which the injured party learns of the damage and the obligor, and in any event, within ten years from the date of the act.

Critical point: In aesthetic procedures, the damage may not always be definitively understood on the day of the surgery. Permanent scarring, asymmetry, depression, tissue loss, or the need for revision may become apparent at the end of the healing process. Therefore, “the date of learning of the damage” must be determined in the specific case file based on control examinations, second medical opinions, expert reports, revision recommendations, and photographs.

Analysis of Claim Items: What Damages Can Be Demanded?

1. Refund of the Surgery Fee Paid or Reduction of the Fee

6502 TKHK m.13 and m.15 Pursuant to the law, a service is considered defective if it lacks the features agreed upon in the contract or objectively required. In the case of a defective service, the consumer may choose to have the service re-performed, the resulting work repaired free of charge, a price reduction proportional to the defect, or rescission of the contract.

Claims for rescission of the contract or a refund in liposuction surgery may be raised in cases where the procedure fails to achieve its purpose, irreversible aesthetic defects occur, or corrective intervention at another healthcare institution becomes mandatory.

Regarding interest, the claim for statutory interest must be specified as starting from the date of the default notice or the lawsuit. Whether interest can be claimed from the date of payment is evaluated separately based on whether the incident constitutes a rescission of the contract or a tort.

2. Treatment, Medication, Examination, and Revision Surgery Expenses

TBK m.54/1 treatment expenses may be claimed within the scope of bodily damages pursuant to the law. Correction of the deformity occurring after liposuction expenses incurred or required to be incurred for are specified in the table below.

Expense Type	Sample Interventions	Documentation
Revision Surgery	Revision liposuction, fat injection, fat grafting, skin correction	Expert report, quotation, cost documents
Wound Treatment	Infection treatment, scar treatment, dermatology services	Prescription, hospital invoice, treatment records
Supportive Treatment	Physical therapy, massage, compression garment, medical corset	Physiotherapist report, garment certificate, invoice
Psychological Support	Psychiatry, psychological counseling, treatment sessions	Expert report, treatment records, invoice
Medication and Dressing	Antibiotics, painkillers, care products, bandages	Invoice, prescription, hospital dressing records

For revision procedures that have not yet been performed but are deemed medically necessary, expert reports and obtained from healthcare institutions cost documentation are of great importance. If the cost of the future surgery cannot be determined, a reasonable amount may be determined by the court.

3. Loss of Earnings and Loss of Earning Capacity

Pursuant to TBK m.54/2 and m.54/3, if there is an inability to work during the post-operative recovery period, continuous health issues, permanent restriction of movement, or a direct impact on professional activities, a claim for loss of earnings may arise.

For this claim, SGK service statements, wage payrolls, tax records, self-employment income documents, disability reports, hospital admission and sick leave documents, as well as an expert calculation, are required. Mere aesthetic dissatisfaction or temporary discomfort does not establish a loss of working capacity in every case. The causal link between the loss of bodily function and the loss of income must be explained through an expert report.

4. Non-Pecuniary Damages

TBK m.56 pursuant to the law, the judge may award an appropriate amount of non-pecuniary damages to the person whose bodily integrity has been impaired, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.

Permanent deformity, asymmetry, severe scarring, skin necrosis, pain, infection, the necessity of revision surgery, psychological trauma, withdrawal from social life, and body image distortion arising from liposuction operations are significant factors in the assessment of non-pecuniary damages.

Non-pecuniary damages is not a punitive instrument. However, it must be an appropriate monetary redress aimed at mitigating the pain and suffering experienced by the aggrieved party. The degree of permanence, deformity in visible areas, number of surgeries, age, social life, and psychiatric impacts must be substantiated through expert and specialist reports.

5. Compensation Due to Lack of Informed Consent

Signing an informed consent form is not always sufficient. The form must possess the following characteristics:

Given within a reasonable time prior to the intervention (at least 1-2 days prior, not on the day of surgery)
Prepared in a language the patient can understand (devoid of abstract terms and jargon)
Containing procedure-specific risks (permanent scarring, asymmetry, infection, nerve damage, fat embolism, etc.)
Mentioning alternative methods (non-surgical methods, different techniques)
Disclosing potential complications and the possibility of revision
Being in a nature that allows the patient's questions to be answered

Particularly, printed consent forms containing standard, abstract, and general statements may not solely demonstrate that the specific risks of the liposuction procedure were explained.

Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu as explicitly stated in its rulings, the burden of proof regarding the fulfillment of the duty to inform lies with the physician. This principle is also of direct importance in liposuction disputes.

Yargıtay Jurisprudence: Precedent Decisions and Approaches

Ruling	Status	General Principle	Conclusion
Yargıtay 6. HD, E. 2023/4200, K. 2024/5071, T. 23.12.2024	Liposuction + upper eyelid surgery; allegation that the aesthetic outcome was not achieved	Aesthetic intervention constitutes a work contract; if the result is not achieved, it cannot be accepted that the performance has been executed	Reversal in favor of the patient
Yargıtay 6. HD, E. 2023/825, K. 2024/1639, T. 21.05.2024	Liposuction + abdominoplasty; delayed wound healing, infection, scarring	Even if a complication is present, liability for defects must be evaluated separately; requires expert witness review	Reversal in favor of the patient
Yargıtay 6. HD, E. 2022/2949, K. 2023/3283, T. 12.10.2023	Cosmetic rhinoplasty; targeted outcome not achieved	Dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds of no medical malpractice is insufficient in aesthetic procedures	Reversal in favor of the patient
Yargıtay HGK, E. 2020/592, K. 2022/356, T. 22.03.2022	Informed consent; burden of proof and judicial review	The burden of proving that informed consent was obtained rests on the physician; a signed form alone is insufficient	In the specific case, against the patient (proven by the physician)
Yargıtay 3. HD, E. 2021/4514, K. 2022/1654, T. 01.03.2022	Nerve damage following medical intervention; claim of complication	The existence of a complication does not eliminate the review of informed consent	Reversal in favor of the patient

The Practical Meaning of Yargıtay Decisions

1. Liposuction Constitutes a Work Contract

As established by the consistent practice of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Yargıtay, aesthetic liposuction surgeries are accepted as possessing the nature of a work contract (eser sözleşmesi). In this context, the physician or hospital is not only required to exercise due diligence; they are also obligated to deliver the result consistent with the agreed-upon aesthetic purpose .

2. Complication Defense Alone Is Insufficient

As emphasized in the decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Yargıtay, E. 2023/825 , even if complications such as infection, poor wound healing, or scarring occur, the court's review continues. The compliance of the procedure with medical standards, the predictability and preventability of the complication, its proper management, and whether the aesthetic outcome was achieved must be separately evaluated.

3. Informed Consent Is an Independent Legal Issue

As clearly set forth in the decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Yargıtay, E. 2021/4514 , even if a complication defense is raised, it must be investigated whether the patient was informed regarding these specific risks. The burden of proof regarding informed consent rests with the physician, and a signed standard form alone is insufficient.

Evidence Evaluation and Burden of Proof Strategy

Fact to be Proven	Principal Evidence	Additional Recommendations
Service agreement and fee	Contract, invoice, payment receipt, credit card statement, correspondence	The contract explicitly setting forth the commissioner's right regarding the contractor
Type and scope of the transaction	Patient file, surgical notes, epicrisis, anesthesia form, operation reports	Submission of complete and original documents by the hospital
Sufficiency of informed consent	Consent form, audio/written interview records, correspondence, e-mails	The form being in a language understandable by the patient and containing risks specific to the procedure
Aesthetic promises and promotions	Website, social media posts, advertising visuals, verbal promises	Promises containing exaggerated or unrealistic elements
Pre-operative appearance	Dated photographs, physician examination records, measurement documents	Storage of photographs in an unaltered electronic environment
Post-operative damage	Dated photo/video, secondary physician report, examination records, dermatology evaluation	Photographs being taken at various stages of the surgery
Infection, wound, scar, deformity	Hospital records, prescriptions, dressing documents, dermatology/plastic surgery reports	Evaluation of the scar grade using a medical scale (POSAS, Vancouver)
Need for revision and cost	Expert opinion, treatment plan, price quotation, medical board report	Obtaining quotations from relevant clinics/hospitals for the revision cost
Loss of earnings	Sick leave report, SGK records, payroll, tax/income records	Amounts calculated by an accountant or financial advisor
Non-pecuniary damages and psychological impact	Psychiatry/psychologist records, treatment documents, witness statements, photo series	The impact of the permanent deformity on social life being in a visible area
Physician and hospital fault	Expert review from a university or Institute of Forensic Medicine	The expert should be asked about the compliance of the procedure with medical standards, defects, and the need for revision

Submitting photographs is not the only important factor in proof. The photographs dated, preferably in the form of immutable electronic records (hospital or computer timestamp), enabling a comparison between the pre-operative and post-operative periods . It should be specifically requested that the medical records be submitted completely by the hospital .

Potential Defenses of the Physician and the Hospital

“The Resulting Condition is a Complication; There is No Physician Fault”

This is the most frequently asserted defense. A complication is an undesirable outcome that may occur even when medical intervention is performed in compliance with medical rules. However, the existence of a complication requires that:

The intervention was performed in accordance with medical rules,
The patient's personal risks were properly assessed,
The patient was informed regarding specific risks,
Timely and adequate intervention was provided for the complication,
does not automatically mean

that the aesthetically desired outcome has been achieved. The patient party must request an independent and expert committee of medical experts to examine; whether the procedure complied with medical standards, whether the complication was foreseeable and preventable, whether it was managed correctly, and its permanent consequences.

“The Patient Has Signed the Informed Consent Form Containing All Risks”

The signed form is substantial evidence that the duty of disclosure has been fulfilled; however, it does not conclusively end the dispute by itself. The form must be examined from the following aspects:

Whether it is specific to the individual and the procedure (standard, printed forms are insufficient),
Whether a reasonable amount of time was granted prior to the intervention (forms signed on the day of surgery are questionable),
Whether the risks were explained in a comprehensible manner,
Whether the patient had the opportunity to ask questions.

“Aesthetic Outcomes Vary from Person to Person; No Guarantee of Results Can Be Given”

This defense is correct within certain limits. In aesthetic interventions, an undertaking of absolute perfection is not accepted. However, in light of the precedents of the Yargıtay evaluating aesthetic interventions within the scope of a works contract (eser sözleşmesi); whether the result appropriate to the agreed-upon purpose has been achieved, whether there is a defect in the service, and whether the patient's reasonable expectations have been met are subject to judicial review.

Even if no guarantee of results is given, it is not possible for the physician to be relieved of liability due to; incorrect technical application, deficient planning, inadequate follow-up, manifest aesthetic defects, or inappropriate patient selection. “The Patient Did Not Comply with Post-Operative Recommendations”

Defendants may argue that the patient failed to follow instructions regarding the use of corsets, rest, smoking cessation, wound dressings, medication use, or attendance at follow-up appointments. For this defense to be accepted,

it must be medically established which instructions were given to the patient, when and how they were given, that the non-compliance affected the outcome, and that the causal nexus (illiyet bağı) is present. it must be medically established which instructions were given to the patient, when, and how, that non-compliance affected the outcome, and that the causal nexus exists.

If the patient is found to be at fault, a reduction in compensation may come into question; however, this circumstance does not entirely eliminate the liability for fault on the part of the physician or the hospital.

Judge's Perspective: Factors Considered When Rendering a Decision

When rendering a judgment in a faulty liposuction lawsuit, the matters upon which the judge shall place emphasis are as follows:

Whether the liposuction procedure was purely therapeutic or an intervention intended for aesthetic purposes and containing a guarantee of a specific result,
The nature of the contract and the fee relationship between the parties,
Whether the operation was conducted in compliance with medical rules,
Whether the resulting outcome was the consequence of a complication, medical malpractice, defective performance, or inadequate postoperative follow-up,
Whether the patient was genuinely and effectively informed prior to the procedure,
Whether the impairment in aesthetic appearance is temporary or permanent,
Whether revision surgery is necessary and its cost,
Whether the patient complied with the recommendations,
Whether the items of pecuniary damage have been proven through documentation and expert calculation,
Whether non-pecuniary damages are proportionate to the severity of the incident and equity.

Attention: The greatest weakness is the abstract approach of “the outcome was bad, therefore the physician is liable”. You must build the lawsuit on concrete grounds such as technical error, insufficient informed consent, defective aesthetic outcome, faulty complication management, and items of damages.

Litigation Strategy: Step-by-Step Guide

1. Correctly Identifying the Defendants

The physician, private hospital, clinic enterprise, and other parties to the contract; must be determined through contracts, invoices, patient admission documents, and payment records. Sometimes, a different legal entity may exist under the hospital's name.

2. Establishing Alternative Legal Grounds

Defective service within the scope of consumer law, liability for defects under works contracts, breach of contract, tort, and lack of informed consent in a manner that does not mutually exclude each other must be asserted.

3. Urgent Preservation of Evidence

Before patient files, operative notes, anesthesia records, consent forms, photographs, payment documents, and messaging records are lost must be ensured. When necessary, the request for determination of evidence should be evaluated.

4. Focusing on Expert Witness Examination

The expert should not be asked solely about fault. The aesthetic purpose of the procedure, medical compliance, risk management, consent, permanence, the need for revision, and items of damage should be inquired about separately.

5. Treating Informed Consent as an Independent Claim

Even if no technical fault is determined, the absence of valid informed consent may be decisive in the assessment of compensation.

6. Documenting Pecuniary Damage Items

Expenses for revision, treatment, medication, transportation, care, loss of income, and psychological support with the date and payment receipt must be submitted to the case file.

7. Substantiating Non-Pecuniary Damage

Permanent deformity, visible scarring, need for revision surgery, impact on social life, and psychological consequences not with abstract expressions; but must be demonstrated through medical records, photographs, and, if necessary, witness testimonies.

8. Keeping Claims Open During the Mediation Process

Claims for refund/price reduction, medical treatment expenses, revision costs, loss of labor force, and non-pecuniary compensation must be explicitly stated in the mediation application.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Within How Many Years Can a Lawsuit Be Filed Due to Botched Liposuction Surgery?

Based on tort law, 2 years from the date of learning of the damage and the liable party; in any event, 10 years from the act. However, since aesthetic damage may become apparent later, the "date of learning of the damage" must be determined in the specific case file through medical reports.

2. Should a Liposuction Lawsuit Be Filed in the Consumer Court or the Civil Court of First Instance?

Services provided for a fee by a private hospital, clinic, or aesthetic center constitute a consumer transaction. The lawsuit in the Consumer Court is filed. However, in the case of a public hospital, the Administrative Court has jurisdiction.

3. Is Mediation Mandatory?

Yes. Before filing a compensation lawsuit in the Consumer Court, mandatory mediation must be conducted. A lawsuit filed without a mediation report will be dismissed.

4. Is the Physician Held Liable in Case of a Complication?

No. A complication alone does not give rise to liability. However, the foreseeability of the complication, whether the patient was duly informed, whether the complication was managed properly, and whether the aesthetic outcome was achieved are also examined.

5. I Signed a Consent Form, Can I File a Lawsuit?

Yes. A signed form is important evidence, but it is not sufficient on its own. The court examines whether the form was specific to the individual and the procedure, and whether the risks were written in a clear and understandable manner.

6. Can the Cost of Revision Surgery Be the Subject of a Lawsuit?

Yes. The cost of a revision procedure that has not yet been performed but is deemed medically necessary may be claimed based on an expert report and price quotation documents from healthcare institutions.

7. Is There a Result Guarantee in Liposuction Surgery?

There is no guarantee of absolute perfection. However, a result in conformity with the agreed aesthetic purpose must be achieved. Liability arises in the event of a technical error, faulty planning, or insufficient follow-up.

Conclusion

A compensation lawsuit due to a faulty liposuction surgery cannot be based solely on “dissatisfaction after the surgery”. What is legally decisive is: pre-procedure promises and informed consent, the medical standard of the operation, the conformity of the aesthetic result with the agreed purpose, the nature and management of the complication, and the scope of the tangible damage incurred.

Following the drafting of the lawsuit, mediation, expert witness briefing, evaluation of evidence, and the correct application of the Court of Cassation jurisprudence, it is possible to protect the patient's legitimate rights. In Istanbul Beylikdüzü and all over Turkey against such disputes, joint liability framework, alternative legal grounds, and a concrete evidence strategy are the keys to success.

About Us – Contact Information

Atty. Batın YILMAZ

Bar Association Information:

Istanbul Bar Association No. 1: 77008
Union of Turkish Bar Associations: 187392

Address:
Yakuplu Mahallesi, Hürriyet Bulvarı Skyport Residence Kat:12 No:133
Beylikdüzü, İstanbul

Contact:
📞 Telephone: 0 532 669 34 90
📞 Alternative Phone: 0 532 732 34 90

Visit Our Contact Page