Compensation for Medical Malpractice in Türkiye: Competent Court, Time Limits and Proof

When unexpected harm arises after medical treatment, the first question patients and their relatives usually ask is "whom can I claim against, where, and by when?" The answer varies considerably depending on whether treatment took place at a private healthcare institution or at a public hospital. This article outlines the legal avenues available in medical malpractice cases under Turkish law.

Malpractice versus complication

Medical malpractice occurs when a physician acts contrary to the standards accepted by medical science and the duty of care, causing harm to the patient. A complication, by contrast, is a medically foreseeable undesired outcome that may occur despite all due care. This distinction is decisive for liability: where the harm results from a complication, the physician's liability generally arises only if the patient was not properly informed of that risk. Informed consent is discussed in a separate article.

Private hospitals and private practices

Nature of the legal relationship

According to settled Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) case law, the relationship between a private hospital or physician and the patient is a contract of mandate governed by Articles 502 et seq. of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098. As agent, the physician must perform the work with due care; the operator of a private hospital is also liable with regard to the selection and supervision of the physicians and staff it employs.

Competent court

Since contracts of mandate were brought within the scope of the Consumer Protection Law No. 6502, in practice the consumer court is, as a rule, competent for cases filed after 28 May 2014. For example, in its decision E. 2023/2069, K. 2023/2343, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Antalya Regional Court of Appeal held that the claimant in a damages action against the physician, the hospital and the physician's professional liability insurer was a consumer and that the consumer courts had jurisdiction. As applying to a mediator before filing suit is a precondition for certain disputes heard by consumer courts, whether this requirement applies should be assessed separately in each case.

Limitation period

Under Article 147(5) of the Turkish Code of Obligations, claims arising from contracts of mandate are subject to a five-year limitation period. In its decision E. 2023/2982, K. 2024/3055, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation emphasised that the relationship between the physician and private hospital and the patient arises from a contract of mandate and that the limitation period is five years. The period generally starts when the harm becomes known. In addition, under Article 72 of the Code, if the damage arises from an act constituting a crime for which criminal law provides a longer limitation period, that longer period may apply.

Public hospitals

Service fault and full-remedy action

Healthcare provided at state hospitals, training and research hospitals and state university hospitals is a public service. Damages arising from medical treatment at these hospitals are claimed by a full-remedy action (tam yargı davası) before the administrative courts, based on the administration's service fault. Under Article 129(5) of the Constitution, no action may be brought directly against a physician who is a public official; the claim must be brought against the administration. In the case underlying decision E. 2022/13000, K. 2023/525 of the 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, a civil action filed against a state hospital physician was dismissed on this ground.

Time limit for applying to the administration

Under Article 13 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, a person whose rights have been infringed by an administrative act must apply to the relevant administration within one year of learning of the act and in any event within five years of the act. If the request is rejected, or if no response is given within thirty days, a full-remedy action may be filed within the time limit for filing suit (as a rule sixty days before administrative courts). In Council of State case law, the date of knowledge is often determined by reference to the medical report or document establishing the harm and the fault; however, as this date may vary from case to case, deadlines should be calculated cautiously. Filing before the wrong branch of the judiciary may result in loss of time.

Proof and expert examination

In malpractice cases, fault is usually determined on the basis of reports from the Forensic Medicine Institute or expert panels formed from the relevant departments of universities. It is therefore essential to obtain the complete patient file, discharge summaries, operative notes, consent forms, test results and imaging records. Under Article 16 of the Regulation on Patient Rights, patients may examine the file and records concerning their health, directly or through their attorney or legal representative, and obtain a copy.

Criminal liability

Where medical treatment results in death or injury, the incident may also be assessed under the provisions of the Turkish Criminal Code on negligent homicide (Art. 85) or negligent injury (Art. 89). Criminal proceedings and compensation proceedings may run independently; however, expert reports obtained in the criminal file may also be significant in the damages action.

Conclusion

Choosing the correct judicial avenue, observing time limits and securing medical records at an early stage are decisive in malpractice claims. Each case must be assessed on its own facts.

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