Rhinoplasty Malpractice in Turkey: Legal Rights and Compensation Claims

Rhinoplasty is one of the most commonly sought cosmetic procedures among international patients travelling to Turkey.

Patients come from the United Kingdom, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Ireland, the United States, Canada, Australia, the Gulf States and many other countries seeking cosmetic nose reshaping, functional correction or a combination of both.

Many procedures are completed successfully.

However, some patients return home with problems such as:

• significant nasal asymmetry;
• a visibly crooked nose;
• nasal collapse;
• breathing obstruction;
• septal damage;
• persistent pain;
• excessive scarring;
• loss or reduction of smell;
• infection;
• unwanted changes to nasal shape;
• the need for one or more revision operations.

When this happens, the clinic may say:

“You need to wait for the final result.”

The surgeon may explain:

“Every nose heals differently.”

Or the patient may be told:

“This is a recognised complication and therefore nobody is responsible.”

Sometimes those explanations are medically legitimate.

Rhinoplasty involves swelling, healing changes and recognised surgical risks. A disappointing early appearance does not automatically prove medical malpractice.

But Turkish law does not allow every failed rhinoplasty to be dismissed simply by using the word “complication.”

The legal analysis can be significantly different where a patient undergoes rhinoplasty primarily for aesthetic purposes.

Turkish Court of Cassation jurisprudence treats result-oriented aesthetic surgery as a contract for work — eser sözleşmesi in appropriate cases. This means that the healthcare provider’s legal obligation can extend beyond merely exercising reasonable professional care: the agreed aesthetic result itself can become part of the contractual obligation.

This approach is particularly important because the Court of Cassation issued a directly relevant rhinoplasty decision in 2025.

In Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2025/1714, K. 2025/2538, dated 25 June 2025, the patient underwent septal perforation repair, septoplasty, concha reduction and rhinoplasty at the defendant hospital. After the first operation, nasal curvature remained and the patient underwent a second operation. She later complained of loss of smell and underwent a third operation by another physician. The dispute eventually concerned reimbursement of the treatment costs.

The Court of Cassation expressly held that the initial aesthetic rhinoplasty was a contract for work and emphasised that such a contract contains a result obligation. It considered the fact that the patient required two further operations after the original rhinoplasty relevant to the failure of the promised result. The Court also held that the expert panel used by the first-instance court was inadequate because it consisted of an ENT specialist and an accounting expert; given the aesthetic nature of the dispute, the expert panel should also have included a Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery specialist.

This is a highly significant judgment for foreign rhinoplasty patients.

It confirms three important principles:

Aesthetic rhinoplasty may be legally treated as a result-oriented contract.

A revision operation can be relevant evidence that the original promised result was not obtained.

And:

Rhinoplasty malpractice must be assessed by experts with the appropriate medical specialty, including plastic and aesthetic surgery expertise where the dispute concerns the aesthetic result.

However, the existence of a bad result still does not mean that every rhinoplasty claimant automatically wins.

The complete medical, contractual and evidential picture must be examined.

When Does a Failed Rhinoplasty Become Medical Malpractice?

A rhinoplasty claim can arise for several different reasons.

The patient may allege:

1. negligent surgical technique;
2. failure to achieve the promised aesthetic result;
3. functional breathing damage;
4. septal injury or perforation;
5. loss of smell;
6. negligent management of a complication;
7. inadequate informed consent;
8. defective hospital organisation.

These legal theories are not identical.

A patient may have one or several of them simultaneously.

Aesthetic Rhinoplasty and Functional Rhinoplasty Are Not Always Legally Identical

This distinction is extremely important.

Some patients undergo rhinoplasty purely to improve appearance.

Others undergo surgery primarily because of:

• septal deviation;
• nasal obstruction;
• trauma;
• structural breathing problems.

Others undergo a combined operation containing both functional and aesthetic elements.

Purely aesthetic treatment is more likely to fall within the Court of Cassation’s contract-for-work approach because the patient seeks a specific external result.

Ordinary therapeutic medicine is generally analysed differently. In therapeutic treatment, the physician usually undertakes professionally appropriate care rather than guaranteeing a cure.

Combined procedures require more careful analysis.

The 2025 Court of Cassation rhinoplasty case itself involved not only rhinoplasty but also septoplasty, concha reduction and septal perforation repair. Nevertheless, the Court specifically identified the initial operation’s aesthetic nature when applying the works-contract rules.

A foreign patient should therefore not assume that every operation containing the word “rhinoplasty” automatically receives exactly the same contractual classification.

The real purpose and agreed scope of treatment matter.

Why Is Rhinoplasty Considered a “Result-Oriented” Procedure?

Article 470 and following provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations regulate contracts for work.

The distinguishing characteristic is that the contractor undertakes to create a particular result.

The Court of Cassation explained this principle directly in its 2025 rhinoplasty decision.

Unlike a mandate relationship in which professional activity is undertaken without guaranteeing a particular outcome, the works-contract structure involves the creation and delivery of an agreed result.

The Court further emphasised the contractor’s duties of loyalty and care and stated that the completed work should comply with professional and technical standards while meeting the legitimate expectations created by the contract.

For rhinoplasty, the agreed “work” may involve objectives such as:

• correcting a crooked appearance;
• reducing a dorsal hump;
• improving nasal symmetry;
• changing the nasal tip;
• creating a specific overall aesthetic proportion.

This does not mean that a surgeon must produce a mathematically perfect nose.

Human anatomy and healing are biologically variable.

But a result-oriented cosmetic contract allows the court to compare:

what was agreed, with

what was actually achieved.

The 2025 Court of Cassation Rhinoplasty Decision in Detail

The decision E. 2025/1714, K. 2025/2538 deserves particular attention because it specifically concerns rhinoplasty.

The patient had undergone several procedures at the hospital:

• septal perforation repair;
• septoplasty;
• concha reduction;
• rhinoplasty.

After surgery, a nasal curvature remained.

She underwent another operation at the same institution.

She later complained of loss of smell and eventually underwent a third procedure with another doctor.

A Consumer Arbitration Committee had accepted her claim concerning reimbursement of the amounts paid.

The hospital challenged that decision.

The first-instance court relied on expert findings and ruled in favour of the hospital.

The Court of Cassation found the legal and expert assessment inadequate.

The Court emphasised that the aesthetic operation constituted a works-contract relationship and that the patient undergoing further operations after the first procedure was relevant to whether the result obligation had been fulfilled.

But perhaps just as importantly, the Court focused on expert specialisation.

The original expert panel consisted of an ENT physician and an accounting expert.

The Court held that this was insufficient for a dispute involving aesthetic rhinoplasty and required a new panel containing a Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery specialist.

For foreign patients, this is a very useful precedent.

A negative expert report should not automatically be accepted if the specialists who prepared it do not have the expertise required to evaluate the precise procedure and allegations.

A Revision Rhinoplasty Can Be Important Evidence

Revision surgery does not automatically prove malpractice.

Sometimes a patient elects revision because personal preferences change.

Sometimes natural healing makes minor revision medically appropriate despite acceptable original treatment.

But repeated revision can be highly relevant.

The Court of Cassation’s 2025 rhinoplasty decision expressly observed that the patient’s need for two additional procedures after the initial operation demonstrated the significance of the alleged failure of the original result obligation.

A patient considering a malpractice claim should therefore preserve:

• the original operation report;
• second-operation report;
• revision surgeon’s findings;
• photographs before each procedure;
• CT scans or other imaging;
• reasons documented for the revision.

The most important question is not simply:

“Did you have revision surgery?”

It is:

“Why was the revision necessary?”

A Crooked Nose After Rhinoplasty

Persistent nasal deviation is one of the most common complaints after failed rhinoplasty.

A slight early asymmetry caused by swelling should not automatically be treated as permanent malpractice.

But significant persistent deviation may require expert investigation.

Relevant questions include:

• Was the nose straight before surgery?
• Was correcting deviation an agreed goal?
• Did surgery create a new deviation?
• Is the deviation caused by unpredictable healing?
• Did inadequate structural support contribute?
• Is the deformity permanent?
• Does it also affect breathing?

Photographs are particularly important.

Preoperative and postoperative images allow experts to determine whether the original anatomical problem improved, remained or worsened.

Breathing Problems After Rhinoplasty

Rhinoplasty is not purely about appearance.

The nose has an essential respiratory function.

A cosmetic result that looks acceptable but leaves the patient unable to breathe properly can still create a serious legal issue.

Potential problems may include:

• nasal valve collapse;
• excessive reduction of structural support;
• septal deviation;
• scar-related obstruction;
• turbinate problems;
• structural narrowing.

Where the patient had no major breathing problem before surgery but develops chronic obstruction immediately after rhinoplasty, the preoperative and postoperative records become crucial.

Legal evaluation may require both:

• Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery expertise;
• ENT expertise.

The exact expert composition should follow the medical issues in dispute.

Septal Perforation and Septal Damage

Septal damage can produce:

• breathing difficulty;
• crusting;
• bleeding;
• whistling sounds;
• structural instability.

A septal perforation may sometimes arise as a recognised complication.

But the mere fact that perforation is medically possible does not automatically exclude malpractice.

Experts should determine:

• whether surgical technique was appropriate;
• whether the tissue was handled correctly;
• whether the patient had prior septal damage;
• whether postoperative care was adequate;
• whether the patient was informed of the risk.

Where the perforation existed before surgery, as in the 2025 Court of Cassation case, the exact purpose of the procedure becomes particularly important because the operation may have been intended partly to repair it.

Loss of Smell After Rhinoplasty

Loss or reduction of smell—anosmia or hyposmia—can be particularly distressing.

It may affect:

• enjoyment of food;
• quality of life;
• occupational functioning;
• personal safety.

A loss-of-smell claim requires medical evidence.

The 2025 Court of Cassation rhinoplasty case itself involved a complaint of loss of smell after the patient’s procedures. The first-instance court had considered the complaint insufficiently medically established, while the Court of Cassation ultimately required a more appropriately constituted expert examination of the overall rhinoplasty dispute.

Foreign patients claiming smell loss should therefore obtain objective ENT assessment where possible.

A statement such as:

“I cannot smell properly anymore”

is important evidence from the patient, but expert medical documentation substantially strengthens the claim.

Nasal Collapse or Saddle Nose

Excessive removal or weakening of nasal structures can potentially lead to collapse.

Possible consequences include:

• visible depression;
• loss of nasal support;
• breathing impairment;
• need for cartilage grafting and revision surgery.

Where the problem results from negligent over-resection or inadequate reconstruction, malpractice may be established.

However, some structural changes may result from healing characteristics or prior surgical history.

The expert must distinguish a technically attributable defect from unavoidable biological change.

Infection After Rhinoplasty

Infection does not automatically prove malpractice.

Every surgical intervention carries some infection risk.

The legal analysis should instead ask:

• Were appropriate preventive measures taken?
• Were symptoms recognised promptly?
• Were antibiotics or other treatment provided when required?
• Did delayed treatment cause tissue damage?

An infection that arises despite appropriate care may constitute a complication.

An infection that becomes severe because the clinic repeatedly ignored obvious warning signs may create a very different legal result.

Complication Versus Malpractice in Rhinoplasty Cases

The Court of Cassation’s 2025 rhinoplasty judgment directly states that complications do not remove the provider’s duties concerning:

informed consent, and

proper complication management.

This is an extremely important principle.

The surgeon may not be responsible for the initial occurrence of every complication.

But the provider can still be responsible if:

• the patient was never warned about the risk;
• the complication was recognised too late;
• follow-up was inadequate;
• the complication was treated improperly.

Consent to a surgical risk is not consent to negligent healthcare.

Informed Consent Before Rhinoplasty

Rhinoplasty is commonly elective.

This makes informed consent especially important.

Under Turkey’s Patient Rights Regulation, patients have rights concerning medical information and consent. The Regulation applies broadly to public and private healthcare institutions and to persons receiving healthcare services.

Before rhinoplasty, relevant information may include:

• nature of the planned procedure;
• realistic expected outcome;
• alternative treatment;
• material surgical risks;
• possible complications;
• functional consequences;
• possibility of revision.

Consent should not be treated as a purely administrative signature exercise.

A patient should have sufficient information to make a meaningful decision.

Foreign Patients and Turkish-Language Consent Forms

This is especially relevant in medical tourism.

A British, German, Dutch, French, Arabic-speaking or other foreign patient may be given multiple Turkish forms immediately before surgery.

The patient may sign without understanding them.

The existence of a signature is relevant, but it does not automatically answer whether the patient was genuinely informed.

For foreign rhinoplasty patients, evidence may include:

• English or other language consent forms;
• interpreter records;
• consultation notes;
• WhatsApp explanations;
• timing of the signature.

A clinic salesperson telling the patient:

“These are just standard papers”

does not substitute for meaningful medical information.

The Patient’s Desired Nose Versus the Legally Promised Result

Aesthetic malpractice claims can become difficult where the patient’s expectations were highly subjective.

A patient cannot necessarily establish liability merely by saying:

“I wanted a better nose.”

The claim is stronger where the agreed goal can be identified objectively.

Evidence may include:

• consultation records;
• treatment plan;
• digital simulations;
• surgeon drawings;
• written descriptions;
• WhatsApp communications;
• preoperative photographs.

For example, if the agreed objective was specifically:

“to correct the visible right-sided deviation”

and severe right-sided deviation remains after several procedures, the contractual analysis becomes more concrete.

Do Digital Rhinoplasty Simulations Create a Guarantee?

Not automatically.

Digital simulations are often used to discuss possible results.

Whether a simulation became part of an actual contractual promise depends on the circumstances.

Relevant questions include:

• What did the doctor say about the simulation?
• Was it described as illustrative only?
• Did the clinic expressly promise that specific result?
• Did the patient choose treatment because of that representation?

The simulation can still be important evidence of the parties’ discussions, even where it does not constitute an absolute guarantee.

Before-and-After Photographs Are Crucial

Rhinoplasty malpractice cases are highly visual.

Patients should preserve:

• clinic’s original preoperative photographs;
• immediate postoperative photographs;
• photographs during healing;
• photographs after swelling substantially resolves;
• current high-resolution photographs.

Try to preserve original files rather than social-media screenshots.

Consistent front, profile and oblique views can be particularly useful for expert evaluation.

Do You Need to Wait One Year Before Bringing a Claim?

Not necessarily.

Rhinoplasty healing can take a substantial period, and surgeons often advise patients that final aesthetic results can take many months to stabilise.

That may be medically reasonable.

But medical healing time and legal limitation periods are not the same thing.

The patient should not assume:

“I cannot speak to a lawyer until twelve months have passed.”

Where severe problems exist—such as major breathing impairment, structural collapse, infection or clearly documented surgical injury—legal evidence can be preserved immediately.

A lawyer can analyse deadlines while the medical result continues to evolve.

Should You Agree to Revision Surgery With the Same Surgeon?

There is no universal answer.

A clinic may offer free revision.

That can sometimes be a reasonable solution.

But a patient who has lost trust in the surgeon should obtain independent medical advice before agreeing to another procedure.

Consider:

• why the first procedure failed;
• whether the surgeon accepts the defect;
• what revision is proposed;
• whether revision carries additional risk;
• whether an independent surgeon recommends it.

A patient should not feel legally compelled to undergo repeated operations simply because the original clinic offers them free of charge.

Corrective Rhinoplasty Abroad

Many foreign patients undergo revision after returning home.

For example:

A British patient may undergo revision rhinoplasty in London.

A German patient may seek reconstructive surgery in Berlin.

A Dutch patient may obtain specialist treatment in Amsterdam.

These records can become very important in a Turkish compensation claim.

The revision surgeon may document:

• excessive cartilage removal;
• structural collapse;
• septal perforation;
• scar tissue;
• implant or graft problems;
• previous technical deficiencies.

Preserve the revision operative report.

It may be more valuable than the invoice alone.

Can the Cost of Revision Rhinoplasty Abroad Be Claimed?

Potentially.

Where malpractice or defective contractual performance is established, necessary corrective treatment can form part of the material-damages analysis.

Article 54 of the Turkish Code of Obligations identifies treatment expenses, lost earnings, loss or reduction of working capacity and impairment of economic prospects among bodily injury losses.

Accordingly, medically necessary revision expenses can potentially be claimed where causation and reasonableness are established.

The foreign location of the corrective treatment does not automatically make the expense irrelevant.

Material Compensation After Rhinoplasty Malpractice

Depending on the injury, financial damages may include:

• revision surgery;
• reconstructive treatment;
• ENT treatment;
• medication;
• diagnostic imaging;
• rehabilitation;
• documented lost income;
• loss of working capacity in serious cases.

Article 54 specifically recognises treatment expenses and earning-related bodily injury losses.

Every claimed amount should be supported by evidence.

Preserve invoices, payment records and medical recommendations.

Moral Damages for Failed Rhinoplasty

A failed rhinoplasty can have consequences beyond the cost of revision surgery.

The nose occupies a central position on the face.

Permanent deformity can affect:

• self-confidence;
• social interaction;
• psychological well-being;
• personal and professional life.

Breathing problems, chronic pain or permanent loss of smell can create additional suffering.

Article 56 of the Turkish Code of Obligations permits a court, considering the circumstances, to award appropriate non-material compensation where bodily integrity has been harmed.

The amount is determined according to the circumstances of the individual case.

There is no automatic fixed tariff for a failed rhinoplasty.

Refund of the Original Surgery Fee

A foreign patient may also seek return of the price paid, depending on the legal basis and facts.

Under Article 475 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, where the contractor is responsible for a defective work, the customer can potentially exercise remedies including:

• withdrawal from the contract in sufficiently serious cases;
• proportionate price reduction;
• free correction where appropriate.

The right to claim damages under general rules is expressly preserved.

Consumer law may additionally provide remedies for defective services.

Article 15 of Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 provides remedies including re-performance, correction, price reduction and withdrawal, together with the possibility of claiming damages under the Turkish Code of Obligations.

The correct remedy depends on the structure of the claim.

Can the Patient Claim Both Refund and Compensation?

Potentially, depending on the legal basis and how the remedies are structured.

Refund of the original surgery fee and compensation for additional physical injury are legally different concepts.

For example, a patient might claim:

• refund or price reduction concerning defective aesthetic performance;
• plus necessary revision expenses;
• plus qualifying non-material damages.

However, double recovery for the same economic loss is not permitted.

The claims should therefore be legally structured rather than simply adding every possible monetary category.

Who Can Be Responsible: Surgeon, Clinic or Hospital?

A rhinoplasty malpractice case may involve multiple defendants.

Potentially relevant parties include:

• operating surgeon;
• private hospital;
• private clinic;
• medical tourism company.

The patient’s lawyer should examine:

• who signed the treatment contract;
• who performed surgery;
• who issued the invoice;
• who received the money;
• who controlled postoperative care.

Do not assume the Instagram clinic name is the legal healthcare provider.

International Health Tourism Rules

Foreign patients travelling to Turkey specifically for healthcare are also covered by the current International Health Tourism and Tourist Health Regulation, published on 26 April 2025.

The Regulation applies to international health tourists and to public, university and private healthcare facilities and intermediary organisations serving them. It requires international health tourism providers to comply with authorisation and service standards.

Accordingly, a foreign rhinoplasty patient should identify whether the healthcare facility and any intermediary were operating within the international health tourism authorisation framework applicable at the time of treatment.

The Regulation also requires health tourism providers to maintain foreign-language website options and connects provider identity to the relevant authorisation documents.

This can help patients determine which legal entity actually provided or organised the service.

Why Expert Evidence Is Particularly Important in Rhinoplasty Cases

The 2025 Court of Cassation rhinoplasty ruling sends a very clear message about expert evidence.

Aesthetic rhinoplasty should not be assessed by an expert panel lacking the medical expertise necessary to evaluate the aesthetic surgical result.

The Court specifically criticised reliance on a panel consisting of an ENT specialist and an accounting expert and required an expert panel containing a Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery specialist.

This is especially important where a case includes both:

• functional complaints such as breathing or smell;
• aesthetic complaints such as deviation or shape.

A multidisciplinary panel may therefore be appropriate.

What If the Expert Report Says “No Malpractice”?

Do not automatically conclude that the case is over.

The report should be examined carefully.

Questions include:

• Did the panel contain appropriate specialists?
• Did it examine the aesthetic result obligation?
• Did it consider before-and-after photographs?
• Did it analyse the revision operations?
• Did it investigate the breathing complaint?
• Did it separately assess informed consent?
• Did it address each allegation?

The Court of Cassation’s rhinoplasty judgment itself is an example of why expert composition and reasoning can be decisive.

Consumer Court and Mediation

Private cosmetic treatment supplied to an individual patient will commonly fall within Turkey’s consumer-law framework.

Where a dispute proceeds to Consumer Court, mandatory mediation generally applies before filing, subject to statutory exceptions. Article 73/A makes mediation a condition of action in Consumer Court disputes except for specified categories.

For 2026, consumer disputes below 186,000 TL fall within the Consumer Arbitration Committee monetary threshold.

High-value rhinoplasty malpractice claims involving permanent injury, substantial revision expenses and non-material damages will frequently exceed that threshold, although the actual claim value must be calculated individually.

Can a Foreign Patient Sue After Returning Home?

Potentially, yes.

Returning to the UK, Germany, France or another country does not automatically eliminate legal rights arising from rhinoplasty performed in Turkey.

A properly authorised Turkish lawyer can potentially:

• request medical records;
• investigate the healthcare provider;
• commence mandatory mediation;
• file the lawsuit;
• submit foreign medical evidence;
• challenge expert reports.

A foreign patient does not ordinarily need to relocate to Turkey simply to pursue the case.

Evidence Checklist for Rhinoplasty Malpractice

A foreign patient should preserve the following wherever available:

1. Treatment contract.
2. Price quotation.
3. Proof of payment.
4. Preoperative photographs.
5. Digital simulations.
6. WhatsApp and email conversations.
7. Consent forms.
8. Operative report.
9. Anaesthesia records.
10. Hospital discharge report.
11. Postoperative photographs.
12. ENT evaluations.
13. Smell-testing results where relevant.
14. CT or other imaging.
15. Revision rhinoplasty report.
16. Foreign specialist opinion.
17. Corrective-treatment invoices.
18. Evidence of lost earnings.

The objective is to reconstruct the entire treatment journey.

A Practical Example: Persistent Deviation

A British patient travels to Istanbul specifically to correct a visibly crooked nose.

The surgeon promises significant straightening.

After healing, substantial deviation remains.

The patient undergoes a second operation at the same clinic.

The nose remains visibly crooked and the patient later requires revision surgery in the UK.

This factual structure strongly resembles issues considered in the Court of Cassation’s 2025 rhinoplasty decision.

The need for repeated surgery can be relevant to whether the original result obligation was fulfilled.

The patient would need expert assessment of:

• aesthetic result;
• medical technique;
• need for revision;
• resulting expenses.

Example: Aesthetic Success but Severe Breathing Damage

A patient receives the desired cosmetic appearance but develops severe nasal obstruction after surgery.

The provider cannot simply argue:

“The patient got the nose she asked for.”

Rhinoplasty must still be performed according to applicable medical standards.

Aesthetic contractual performance does not permit unnecessary functional damage.

ENT examination and imaging may be particularly important in such a case.

Example: Loss of Smell

A patient reports normal smell before surgery but substantial loss of smell after rhinoplasty.

The legal case should obtain:

• preoperative history;
• postoperative ENT findings;
• smell testing where available;
• operative report;
• evidence concerning the possible mechanism of injury.

The 2025 Court of Cassation rhinoplasty case confirms that loss of smell can form part of a rhinoplasty dispute and that appropriate expert analysis is essential.

Example: Recognised Complication With Proper Care

A patient develops temporary numbness.

The risk was explained before surgery.

Medical technique was correct.

The symptom gradually resolves and no permanent injury remains.

Such a circumstance may represent an ordinary complication rather than actionable malpractice.

The existence of disappointment alone is insufficient.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a botched rhinoplasty medical malpractice in Turkey?

Potentially. The legal analysis depends on whether there was technical medical negligence, failure to achieve an agreed aesthetic result, inadequate informed consent, negligent complication management or another contractual or medical breach.

Does Turkish law treat rhinoplasty as a contract for work?

Where rhinoplasty is performed for aesthetic purposes, the Court of Cassation expressly recognises the works-contract approach. In its 25 June 2025 rhinoplasty decision, the 6th Civil Chamber classified the aesthetic operation as a contract for work containing a result obligation.

Does a bad result automatically mean the surgeon is liable?

No. Biological healing factors and recognised complications still matter. Liability must be established through the facts and appropriate expert evidence.

Is a second rhinoplasty proof of malpractice?

Not automatically. However, the Court of Cassation’s 2025 rhinoplasty case regarded the patient’s subsequent operations as relevant to whether the original result obligation had been achieved.

Can I claim if my nose is still crooked after rhinoplasty?

Potentially, particularly where correction of the deviation was a clearly agreed aesthetic objective and the remaining defect is objectively established.

Can I claim if rhinoplasty damaged my breathing?

Potentially. Functional respiratory injury may support a malpractice claim where medical evidence connects the breathing problem with negligent or defective treatment.

Can I claim for loss of smell?

Potentially. Objective ENT assessment is important. Loss of smell was among the issues in the Court of Cassation’s 2025 rhinoplasty case.

Can septal perforation be malpractice?

Potentially. Septal perforation can be a recognised complication, but experts must determine whether it resulted from negligent technique and whether the patient was properly informed and appropriately treated.

Can infection after rhinoplasty be malpractice?

Infection alone does not prove negligence. The court may examine prevention, recognition and treatment of the infection.

Does signing a consent form prevent me from suing?

No. Consent to recognised risks is not consent to negligent treatment, and the validity and adequacy of the informed-consent process can itself be disputed.

Can I obtain a refund for failed rhinoplasty?

Potentially. Works-contract and consumer-law remedies can include withdrawal, price reduction, correction and damages depending on the circumstances.

Can I claim revision rhinoplasty costs?

Potentially, if revision is medically necessary and causally connected with the defective original treatment.

Can the revision be performed outside Turkey?

Yes. Necessary foreign corrective-treatment expenses can potentially be relevant to the compensation claim where properly documented.

Can I claim moral damages?

Potentially. Article 56 of the Turkish Code of Obligations allows appropriate non-material compensation where bodily integrity has been harmed.

Which specialist should evaluate the case?

This depends on the allegations. The Court of Cassation specifically required Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery expertise in the 2025 rhinoplasty case. ENT expertise may additionally be necessary where breathing, septal function or smell are disputed.

Do foreign patients have to return to Turkey to sue?

Not necessarily. Many legal steps can potentially be handled through properly authorised Turkish counsel.

Conclusion: Failed Rhinoplasty Claims Require Both Aesthetic and Medical Analysis

Rhinoplasty malpractice occupies a particularly important position in Turkish medical law because nose surgery can combine two fundamentally different objectives:

appearance, and

function.

A patient may seek a straighter, smaller or differently shaped nose.

At the same time, the nose must continue to function as a respiratory organ.

For this reason, a proper rhinoplasty malpractice investigation should never ask only:

“Does the nose look bad?”

Nor should it ask only:

“Did the surgeon commit a technical medical error?”

Both aesthetic and functional consequences may be legally relevant.

The Court of Cassation’s 25 June 2025 rhinoplasty judgment, E. 2025/1714, K. 2025/2538, provides one of the clearest recent authorities.

The patient underwent rhinoplasty together with septal procedures.

After the first operation, nasal curvature remained and another operation was performed.

A later loss-of-smell complaint resulted in a third operation by another doctor.

The Court of Cassation held that the original aesthetic rhinoplasty constituted a contract for work and emphasised the result obligation inherent in that legal relationship.

The Court considered the subsequent operations relevant to whether the promised result had been achieved.

But it did not simply declare malpractice automatically.

Instead, it focused heavily on the quality of expert evidence.

The Court found the existing expert panel inadequate because the panel did not contain a Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery specialist.

It required a properly qualified expert panel capable of assessing the aesthetic nature of the rhinoplasty dispute.

This is an extremely important lesson for foreign patients.

A rhinoplasty claim should be evaluated by the right medical experts.

Where the complaint involves external shape, aesthetic surgical expertise may be essential.

Where the complaint involves:

breathing,

septal damage,

or

loss of smell,

ENT expertise may additionally be required.

A multidisciplinary approach may therefore be necessary.

The second major principle is that a recognised complication does not automatically eliminate responsibility.

The Court of Cassation’s rhinoplasty decision expressly stated that informed consent and proper complication management remain part of the provider’s responsibility.

A patient may therefore have a claim even where the original adverse event was medically recognised if:

the risk was not properly explained,

the complication was recognised too late,

or

the complication was managed negligently.

The aesthetic works-contract structure adds another level.

Turkish courts can examine whether the agreed aesthetic result was actually delivered.

A provider therefore cannot necessarily defend a persistent major deformity merely by saying:

“There was no technical surgical mistake.”

Where the agreed result is objectively identifiable and has not been obtained, defective contractual performance can become relevant.

At the same time, Turkish law does not guarantee every cosmetic patient perfect beauty.

Human biology remains variable.

Swelling, scar formation, tissue behaviour and individual anatomy must all be considered.

The patient still needs a medically and legally supportable case.

This is why evidence matters.

Foreign rhinoplasty patients should obtain:

the complete medical file,

preoperative photographs,

operative report,

consent documents,

postoperative photographs,

ENT records,

and revision surgery reports.

WhatsApp communications can also be particularly important in establishing what was promised before treatment and what symptoms were reported afterwards.

Where revision surgery has already taken place abroad, preserve the revision surgeon’s operative findings.

A detailed report saying that the revision required reconstruction because of structural damage can be far more valuable than a simple invoice.

Compensation can potentially include several categories.

Under Article 54 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, bodily injury losses include treatment costs, lost earnings, loss or reduction of working capacity and impairment of economic prospects.

Article 56 allows appropriate non-material compensation where bodily integrity has been harmed.

In a result-oriented works-contract claim, Article 475 additionally provides remedies including withdrawal in sufficiently serious circumstances, price reduction and free correction, while preserving general damages claims.

Consumer law may provide parallel remedies where the medical service is legally defective.

For foreign patients, Turkish international health tourism regulation also matters.

The current Regulation introduced in April 2025 specifically regulates healthcare institutions and intermediaries serving international health tourists and requires providers operating within this system to satisfy applicable authorisation and service standards.

Accordingly, the legal investigation should identify:

the surgeon,

hospital,

clinic,

medical tourism intermediary,

and

entity that received payment.

Finally, patients should not delay legal review simply because the clinic advises waiting for the final aesthetic result.

Medical healing can genuinely require time.

But legal deadlines operate independently.

Evidence can be preserved and limitation periods can be analysed while healing continues.

If you suffered permanent nasal deviation, breathing difficulty, septal damage, nasal collapse, loss of smell, severe scarring or the need for revision surgery after rhinoplasty in Turkey, the correct question is not simply whether the outcome is called a “complication.” Turkish law requires examination of medical technique, the promised aesthetic result, informed consent, complication management, causation and the quality of specialist expert evidence.

The 2025 Court of Cassation rhinoplasty decision makes this particularly clear:

aesthetic rhinoplasty carries a result-oriented contractual dimension, and the courts must evaluate that result through appropriately qualified specialist evidence.

Legal Disclaimer

This article provides general information concerning rhinoplasty malpractice, aesthetic surgery liability and compensation under Turkish law as of September 2026. It does not constitute individual legal advice.

Whether a failed rhinoplasty constitutes malpractice depends on the purpose of the operation, agreed aesthetic result, medical technique, patient’s anatomy, informed-consent process, complications, postoperative management, hospital organisation, expert evidence and causal relationship between treatment and claimed injury.

Functional and aesthetic rhinoplasty claims can require different or combined specialist expertise.

Each rhinoplasty malpractice case should therefore be assessed individually using the complete medical record, before-and-after evidence and appropriate independent medical evaluation.