Compensation Lawsuit Due to Botched Rhinoplasty (2026)

Botched Rhinoplasty Lawsuit: Exercise Your Consumer Rights

A rhinoplasty surgery performed for a fee by a private hospital or private physician constitutes a consumer transaction from the perspective of the patient, and a service provision from the perspective of the hospital or physician. Article 3 of Law No. 6502 on the Protection of Consumers’, deems service contracts between a provider acting for commercial or professional purposes and a consumer acting for non-commercial or non-professional purposes as consumer transactions.

This article discusses compensation lawsuits arising from botched rhinoplasty procedures, medical interventions in the nature of a contract for work (eser sözleşmesi), expert witness calculations, Law No. 6502 claims arising pursuant to, Yargıtay jurisprudence and litigation strategies.

---

Legal Characterization

In cases where rhinoplasty does not solely serve a therapeutic purpose but is performed to alter appearance and achieve a specific aesthetic outcome, In the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), the legal relationship may diverge from a classic medical treatment contract and be evaluated as a works contract (ser sözleşmesi). This characterization is crucial: the mere performance of a medical intervention is not deemed sufficient; it is also examined whether the agreed-upon or reasonably expected aesthetic result has been achieved according to the specific circumstances of the case.

However, this approach does not mean that every dissatisfaction with an aesthetic outcome will automatically give rise to the liability of the physician and the hospital. The court shall;

• the preoperative nasal structure,
• whether the patient's expectations are medically achievable,
• the surgical plan and medical indication,
• the scope of the informed consent,
• the compliance of the intervention with medical standards,
• whether the complication was foreseeable and manageable,
• postoperative follow-up, interventions, and guidance,
• deformity, respiratory problems, loss of smell, collapse, deviation, asymmetry, and the permanence of scars

evaluate through expert witness examination.

6502 sayılı Kanun’un 13. maddesine pursuant to Article 13 of Law No. 6502, a service is considered defective if it contains deficiencies that reduce or eliminate the benefit reasonably expected by the consumer. In accordance with Article 15 of the same Law, in the case of a defective service, the consumer may choose one of the following rights: re-performance of the service, free repair of the resulting work, a discount on the price, or rescission of the contract. In addition to their elective right, the consumer may also pursuant to the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), claim compensation.

Therefore, in the allegation of a botched rhinoplasty, the primary legal argument should be established as follows:

Legal Argument Step	Explanation
1. Nature of the Consumer Transaction	A cosmetic procedure is a paid service provided to a consumer
2. Defectiveness of the Service	The service has failed to deliver the aesthetic and functional outcome that was promised, disclosed, or reasonably expected by the consumer
3. Fault of the Defendant	Pre-intervention information and written consent are insufficient, or complication management is faulty; or the surgical technique violates medical standards
4. Causation	There is an adequate causal link between the resulting deformity/functional impairment and the intervention performed
5. Claim Items	The Plaintiff claims the surgical fee paid, revision surgery and treatment expenses, along with appropriate non-pecuniary damages

In terms of the nature of the claim, the lawsuit is predominantly an action for performance. Payment of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as well as revision surgery expenses is requested. If the refund of the defective service fee or a price reduction is also to be requested, the elective right must be established clearly and in a non-mutually exclusive manner.

---

Procedural Law Analysis

Competent Court

Assuming that private healthcare services constitute a consumer transaction, the competent court is the Consumer Court. Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 73 of Law No. 6502’s, consumer courts have jurisdiction over disputes arising from consumer transactions and practices directed at consumers.

The specific legal relationship between the hospital and the physician must be carefully examined. If the physician practices independently, and the hospital merely provides space and organizational services, or if fee collection is conducted through a different system, a detailed assessment regarding standing to be sued (husumet) is required. Conversely, in cases where patient admission, fee collection, surgical organization, and healthcare services are provided within the hospital structure, it is important that the hospital is also named as a defendant.

Jurisdiction (Authorized Court)

The consumer, Pursuant to the fifth paragraph of Article 73 of Law No. 6502’s may file the lawsuit in the Consumer Court at their own place of residence. In addition, the court of the defendant's place of residence pursuant to Article 6 of the HMK has general jurisdiction. The court of the province or district where the surgery was performed is a practical option in practice, as it is in most cases both the place of performance and the place where evidence is collected.

Mandatory Mediation

pursuant to Article 73/A of Law No. 6502, applying to a mediator before filing a lawsuit for disputes heard in consumer courts is, as a rule, a condition for filing a lawsuit. Therefore, before filing a lawsuit for material and moral compensation against a private hospital and/or physician, a mandatory mediation application must be made; if no agreement is reached, the final minutes to be drawn up must be attached to the petition.

Consumer Arbitration Tribunal Limit

For consumer disputes below 186,000 TL for the year 2026, application to the Consumer Arbitration Tribunal is mandatory. If the total of material compensation, revision surgery costs, treatment expenses, and moral compensation in rhinoplasty lawsuits exceeds this limit, the Consumer Court has jurisdiction.

Statute of Limitations

In liability arising from defective service pursuant to Article 16 of Law No. 6502 the general period is two years from the performance of the service. This rule applies even if the defect becomes apparent later. However, if the defect is concealed by gross negligence or fraud, the statute of limitations provisions shall not apply.

In the event that the aesthetic procedure is evaluated as a works contract, TBK m.478 also bears significance. For works other than immovable property, claims arising from defects may be brought within two years from delivery; or within twenty years if the contractor is grossly at fault.

In the specific case, the following dates must be determined: Initial examination date, surgery date, date of first detection of complication or defect, follow-up examinations, revision surgery proposal, date of written application/notice, and date of mediation application. Since the date of surgery is unknown, it cannot be definitively determined at this stage whether the limitation period has expired.

---

Analysis of Claims

Head of Claim	Legal Basis	Scope	Interest and Limitation Period
1. Paid Surgery Fee or Price Reduction	TKHK m.13, m.14, m.15; TBK m.470, m.471, m.475	If the existence of defective service is proven, the consumer may request a price reduction proportional to the defect or, as a result of rescission of the contract, the refund of the fee paid	If default has been established by written application to the defendant or invitation to mediation, statutory interest from this date; as a rule, a two-year limitation period starting from the performance of the service
2. Correction or Revision Surgery Expenses	Article 15/1 of TKHK; Articles 49, 50, 54, and 475 of TBK	Revision rhinoplasty fee, examination and testing fees, medication and medical supply expenses, hospital and anesthesia expenses, transportation and accommodation, temporary incapacity	The date on which the damage occurred and its amount is ascertainable; the date of default or the date of filing the lawsuit may be taken as the basis
3. Other Treatment Expenses and Loss of Earnings	Article 54 of TBK	Respiratory disorder, loss of smell, infection, chronic pain, need for retreatment; for salaried employees, sick leave report, SSI records, payroll, loss of income	Statutory interest must be claimed for each item of damage by evaluating the date of damage, date of default, and date of lawsuit
4. Non-Pecuniary Damages	TBK m.56	Permanent deformity, respiratory problem, loss of smell, facial asymmetry, visible scar, necessity of revision surgery; appropriate monetary satisfaction that can partially alleviate the suffering and anguish experienced by the individual	In claims for non-pecuniary damages where the tortious nature predominates, interest may be claimed from the date of the incident; disputes regarding the date of default/lawsuit may arise

Factors to Consider When Claiming Non-Pecuniary Damages: Nature of the intervention, severity of fault, whether the damage is permanent, age and social life of the plaintiff, degree of functional loss, necessity of revision surgery, duration of treatment, defendants' post-operative attitude.

---

Precedent Case Law – Yargıtay Decisions

Ruling	Incident and Legal Issue	Conclusion / Rationale	Evaluation
Yargıtay 6. HD, E. 2023/491, K. 2024/2548, T. 09.09.2024	Loss of smell, nasal deviation, and respiratory issues were alleged following rhinoplasty at a private hospital	It was stated that, unlike a classic medical treatment relationship, aesthetic procedures must be evaluated as a work agreement (contract for work); the defense of medical complications alone does not eliminate liability. A reversal decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiff.	Directly comparable to the rhinoplasty case file. It serves as a strong precedent if functional loss accompanies structural deformity.
Yargıtay 6. HD, E. 2023/4200, K. 2024/5071, T. 23.12.2024	Allegation that the intended appearance was not achieved following aesthetic surgery	It was emphasized that aesthetic surgery constitutes a work agreement (contract for work); if the agreed-upon result is not achieved, the contractor cannot be deemed to have fulfilled their performance. A reversal decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiff.	Supports the contractual significance of the aesthetic result target. It should be used together with pre-operative photographs, consultation notes, and descriptions of the targeted appearance.
Yargıtay 6. HD, E. 2024/1507, K. 2025/1137, T. 19.03.2025	Compensation was claimed due to asymmetry, scarring, and deformity following aesthetic surgery. The court of first instance dismissed the case on the grounds of medical complication and minimal asymmetry.	The Yargıtay found the expert evaluation inadequate as it failed to consider the nature of the aesthetic procedure as a work agreement (contract for work) and the liability for a specific result. The label of a complication does not automatically eliminate liability. A reversal decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiff.	Important against the defendants' defense of "this is a normal complication". It demonstrates that the expert report must be detailed regarding aesthetic outcomes and the follow-up process.
Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2023/3906, K. 2025/315, T. 04.02.2025	Claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages based on allegations of nerve damage following an aesthetic procedure at a private hospital	The nature of the aesthetic procedure as a work contract, medical standards, duty of care, and complication management must be examined together. The decision was reversed in favor of the plaintiff due to an incomplete examination.	Useful regarding revision surgery expenses, complication management, and the review of medical records.
Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/1833, K. 2025/1275, T. 26.03.2025	Failure to achieve the desired outcome after an aesthetic operation and complications arising from the secondary procedure	The first-instance court's approach of "there is no complication or medical malpractice" was deemed insufficient; the decision was reversed by taking into account the nature of the aesthetic procedure, which entails liability for a specific result.	Supports that the existence of a complication alone is not grounds for dismissal.

---

Key Principles Derived from Yargıtay Decisions

Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2023/491, K. 2024/2548, T. 09.09.2024 — Loss of Smell, Deviation, and Breathing Problems

This decision bears the closest resemblance to rhinoplasty disputes. The plaintiff alleged loss of smell, nasal deviation, and breathing problems following a rhinoplasty performed at a private hospital. The first-instance court and the Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the case; however, the Yargıtay re-evaluated the nature of the aesthetic operation, the promised result, and the impact of the complication defense. The critical approach of the decision is that an aesthetic procedure cannot be treated merely as a "medically performed procedure". For this decision to be used effectively, the plaintiff must present not only dissatisfaction with appearance but also objective medical findings.

Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2023/4200, K. 2024/5071, T. 23.12.2024 — Aesthetic Outcome Objective

In this ruling, the Yargıtay clarified that in aesthetic surgery, the element of “achieving an attractive appearance in compliance with the desired and agreed-upon purpose” constitutes the subject matter of a works contract (eser sözleşmesi). The most salient finding of the decision is as follows: If the result is not achieved, the contractor cannot be deemed to have performed their obligation. This jurisprudence is particularly robust when there is concrete data regarding the pre-operative targeted appearance.

Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/1507, K. 2025/1137, D. 19.03.2025 — That a Complication Does Not Constitute an Automatic Ground for Rejection

The decision is significant in countering the defenses frequently invoked by defendants, such as “minimal asymmetry is normal„, “it is an anticipated complication„, and “there is no medical malpractice”. The Yargıtay accepted that an expert report that fails to examine the nature of an aesthetic operation as a works contract and its strict liability for results cannot serve as the basis for a judgment. While a complication does not necessarily entail a fault, the court must answer the following questions: Is the complication truly defined and predictable in medical literature? Was this specific risk disclosed to the patient? Does the written informed consent clearly encompass the concrete risk? Was appropriate and timely intervention performed after the complication arose? Has an acceptable result been achieved with respect to the aesthetic objective?

---

Evidence Assessment and Matching

Evidence	Fact Proved
ANNEX-1: Surgical Contract, Price Quote, Consent Form	Service relationship between the parties, scope of the intervention, fee
ANNEX-2: Invoice, Credit Card Statement, Bank Receipt	Surgical fee paid
ANNEX-3: Pre-operative Photographs and Images	Initial anatomical structure and aesthetic objective
ANNEX-4: Post-operative Photographs Taken on Various Dates	Deformity, asymmetry, depression, scar, and visible damage
ANNEX-5: Hospital Patient File, Epicrisis, Surgical Note, Anesthesia Record	Type of procedure performed, operative process, potential medical deficiencies
ANNEX-6: Control Examination Records and Prescriptions	Postoperative complaints, follow-up, and complication management
ANNEX-7: Independent Expert Opinion or Revision Proposal	Defective outcome, loss of function, and necessity of revision surgery
ANNEX-8: Tomography, Endoscopy, Rhinomanometry, Olfactory Tests	Respiratory distress, deviation, internal structural disorder, loss of smell
ANNEX-9: Revision Surgery Price Quotation or Treatment Plan	Amount of corrective surgery expenses
ANNEX-10: Medication, Examination, Diagnostic Test, and Transportation Invoices	Other items of pecuniary damage
ANNEX-11: Medical Leave Report, Payroll, SGK (SSI) Records	Loss of earnings and impact on working life
ANNEX-12: Written Application, Notice, E-mail, Messaging	Notification of the defect, default, and the defendant's approach
ANNEX-13: Final Mediation Minutes	Fulfillment of the mandatory condition of litigation

Core Questions to be Addressed to the Expert:

• Are the indication and planning of the initial surgery in compliance with medical standards?
• Is the surgical technique used appropriate in terms of the plaintiff's anatomical characteristics?
• Does the resulting deformity or loss of function constitute a complication, medical malpractice, or a defective aesthetic outcome?
• Was the plaintiff adequately informed about the complications and specific risks?
• Is the consent form appropriate for the nature of the specific intervention and its foreseeable risks?
• Is there any delay or deficiency in the postoperative follow-up and treatment process?
• Is revision surgery medically necessary?
• What is the approximate cost of the revision?
• Does the plaintiff's failure to follow postoperative instructions have an impact on the damages?

---

Counterparty's Potential Defenses

“The Resulting Condition is a Complication; the Physician is Not at Fault”

This defense may be strong; however, the concept of a complication alone does not terminate the lawsuit. Whether the complication was medically foreseeable, whether it was disclosed to the patient, whether the intervention complied with standards, and post-complication management must be examined separately. The aforementioned decisions of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Yargitay, indicate that the complication defense does not constitute an automatic ground for dismissal.

“The Patient Gave Written Consent”

The written consent form is important; however, it does not mean that consent was given for every possible outcome on its own. Disclosure must be made prior to the intervention, in a language the patient can understand, and in a manner that includes specific risks. General and standard pre-printed statements alone do not prove that specific risks were explained.

“The Patient Filed the Lawsuit Before Completing the Recovery Process”

In rhinoplasty, the final appearance may take time to form. This defense may be effective in lawsuits filed shortly after the surgery. However, if the damage does not merely consist of temporary edema or the recovery process; if there is a respiratory impairment, permanent deformity, tissue loss, infection, loss of sense of smell, or a need for revision determined by an expert, the lawsuit may not be deemed premature.

“The Plaintiff's Expectations Were Unrealistic”

The aesthetic outcome is evaluated within the patient's facial structure and anatomical boundaries. The defense that a result which is truly medically impossible was not promised may be taken into consideration. The plaintiff must demonstrate with concrete evidence that they were not sufficiently informed about which outcomes were possible and what risks existed, and that visual, verbal, or written promises were made by the physician or clinic.

---

Judge's Perspective

The issue upon which the court will place the greatest weight is not the plaintiff's subjective dissatisfaction with the aesthetic result, but whether the result is objectively defective or contrary to medical standards.

The main elements that must be proven to the judge are as follows:

• concretizing what the aesthetic objective was prior to the surgery,
• demonstrating the existing appearance/functional impairment through photographs and expert reports,
• establishing the causal link between this impairment and the initial surgery,
• scientifically auditing the defense of complication,
• questioning whether the informed consent form provides genuine and sufficient disclosure,
• proving that the revision is a medical necessity arising from the initial intervention rather than an aesthetic preference,
• substantiating pecuniary damages with documentation,
• keeping the non-pecuniary damages claim proportional to the gravity of the incident.

The weak argument to be avoided is: "I did not like my nose; therefore, I demand a refund of the full fee and substantial non-pecuniary damages." Instead, the appearance impairment along with concrete functional loss, objective medical findings, the necessity of revision, insufficient disclosure, or surgical/follow-up malpractice must be established.

---

Litigation Strategy

1. Procurement of All Medical Records: The patient file, operative notes, anesthesia records, consent form, photographs, follow-up records, and prescriptions must be requested from the hospital.

2. Independent Expert Evaluation: It is important to undergo an examination by another otolaryngologist or plastic surgeon prior to the lawsuit, and to have the need for revision, along with functional and aesthetic issues, determined in writing.

3. Documentation of Damages: Documents regarding the initial surgery fee, examinations, diagnostic tests, medications, transportation, revision price quotes, and loss of income, if any, must be collected.

4. Written Application: It is advisable to submit a written application to the hospital and the physician explaining the defect, complaints, need for revision, and demands; and, if possible, to prefer a notary public notice (ihtarname) or verifiable electronic communication.

5. Mandatory Mediation: If the dispute exceeds the consumer arbitration board threshold, an application for mediation must be filed before initiating a lawsuit in the Consumer Court.

6. Statement of Claim: The lawsuit must be filed against the private hospital and, depending on the specific circumstances of the relationship, against the physician, jointly asserting the provisions regarding defective service, work contract (eser sözleşmesi), medical duty of care, informed consent, and bodily harm.

7. Professional Support with a Compensation Lawyer: Compensation lawsuits arising from aesthetic interventions are technical cases that require both medical and legal expertise. Therefore, receiving support from a compensation lawyer from the very beginning of the process is extremely important for the proper collection of evidence and the establishment of an effective litigation strategy. It ensures that expert examinations, forensic medicine reports, and expert opinions are effectively incorporated into the case file. In addition, technical matters such as the accurate calculation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, the determination of fault rates, and the identification of responsible parties require professional assessment.

---

Conclusion

Procedures performed on the facial region, such as rhinoplasty, can directly affect an individual's self-confidence and social life. If you have suffered harm in terms of both health and appearance as a result of a botched aesthetic procedure, you should not hesitate to seek your legal rights. Filing a compensation lawsuit due to medical malpractice ensures both that you obtain your rights and helps prevent the recurrence of similar incidents.

Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection, Turkish Code of Obligations and Yargıtay jurisprudenceexplicitly sets forth the obligation to compensate for damages arising from defective service or medical fault following an aesthetic intervention. In aesthetic surgeries, which are in the nature of a contract for work (eser sözleşmesi), achieving the promised aesthetic and functional result is among the primary obligations of the physician and the hospital. Working with an expert compensation lawyer during this process will help you take the most accurate steps.

---

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