Liability for Cosmetic Surgery in Türkiye: Contract for Work and the Promise of a Result

Aesthetic procedures such as rhinoplasty, breast surgery, abdominoplasty or liposuction differ from therapeutic medical interventions in a legally significant way: the patient consults the physician not to treat an illness but to achieve a particular appearance. This difference directly affects the scope of the physician's liability.

Therapeutic intervention: contract of mandate

For therapeutic interventions, the physician–patient relationship is, as a rule, a contract of mandate under Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) practice. The physician does not guarantee recovery but owes diligent conduct in accordance with medical science. Failure to achieve the expected result despite treatment does not in itself give rise to liability.

Aesthetic intervention: contract for work

The Court of Cassation, however, generally characterises aesthetic procedures as contracts for work (eser sözleşmesi) under Articles 470 et seq. of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098. Under a contract for work, the contractor undertakes to produce a work — that is, a specific result — in return for payment.

In its decision E. 2024/1069, K. 2025/1522, the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated that, for a patient seeking aesthetic surgery, achieving an appearance consistent with the desired and agreed purpose and bringing the process to a healthy conclusion are the subject of the contract for work; that the contractor must produce the work in the client's interest without causing harm; and that disclosure of complications and their proper management are also the contractor's responsibility.

Fault and complications

In therapeutic cases, an expert finding of "no fault" or that the harm was a "complication" is often decisive. In aesthetic cases, such a finding may not be sufficient on its own. In its decision E. 2024/370, K. 2025/514, the 6th Civil Chamber reversed a dismissal, emphasising that even though the reports found no medical error, a contract for work involves a promise of a result and, if the result is not achieved, the contractor is deemed not to have performed.

Likewise, in its decision E. 2023/825, K. 2024/1639, the 6th Civil Chamber, referring to an earlier reversal, stated that under contracts for work the contractor may be liable for defects without being at fault, and that it was wrong to regard the consent form as sufficient in view of the outcome in that case.

Mixed-purpose procedures

Some procedures may have both therapeutic and aesthetic aims (for example cosmetic correction during nasal surgery for a breathing problem). In such cases, the predominant purpose of the intervention and the result promised to the patient become important. In its decision E. 2023/328, K. 2024/2307, the 6th Civil Chamber found that the aesthetic aspect predominated and applied the rules on contracts for work.

What do expert examinations look at?

In disputes over aesthetic procedures, courts generally seek answers to the following questions:

• Was the procedure performed in accordance with medical standards and the parties' agreement?
• Was the promised result (e.g. a pre-operative simulation or the appearance agreed in consultation) achieved?
• Is the outcome defective; did a temporary or permanent health problem arise?
• Was the patient adequately informed of the risks and realistic outcomes?
• If a complication occurred, was it properly managed?

Practical tips for patients

• Keep the information given to you in pre-operative consultations, any simulation images and correspondence.
• Read the consent form carefully before signing and ask about anything you do not understand.
• Document the process with photographs after surgery and attend follow-up appointments.
• If you are dissatisfied with the result, obtain records documenting the current situation before seeing another physician; a second procedure may make it harder to establish the outcome of the first.

For healthcare institutions and physicians

In aesthetic procedures it is essential to manage unrealistic expectations, to explain clearly which results can and cannot be achieved, and to record this disclosure in procedure-specific consent forms. Where a patient requests a result that is not achievable under medical and scientific standards, the patient must be clearly warned.

Conclusion

A physician's liability in aesthetic procedures is broader than in therapeutic interventions, because the physician is deemed to have undertaken not only to act diligently but also to deliver the agreed result. In a dispute, what result was promised — and how this can be proved — is one of the most decisive factors.

This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.