Is the Doctor or the Hospital Responsible for a Failed Medical Procedure in Turkey?

When medical treatment in Turkey produces an unexpected or harmful result, foreign patients frequently ask one immediate question:

Should I sue the doctor or the hospital?

The answer is often:

potentially both — but not always for the same reason.

A failed medical procedure does not automatically establish legal liability. Nor does the person who physically performed the procedure necessarily represent the only party who may be responsible.

Modern medical treatment is an organised service.

A surgeon may perform the operation, but the private hospital may provide the operating room, anaesthesia team, nurses, equipment, intensive-care services, laboratory facilities, postoperative monitoring and emergency-response system.

A medical tourism clinic may sell the treatment package.

A separate intermediary may arrange communication and accommodation.

The patient may even have paid a company whose name is different from the hospital in which treatment occurred.

Accordingly, determining responsibility requires several separate questions:

Was the procedure itself negligently performed?

Was the treatment medically appropriate in the first place?

Did the hospital organise the patient’s care properly?

Was a complication detected and treated in time?

Was valid informed consent obtained?

Did the hospital or clinic promise a particular result?

Was the procedure therapeutic or purely aesthetic?

Which company actually contracted with the patient?

Who received the treatment fee?

Depending on the answers, legal responsibility may belong to:

• the doctor;
• the hospital;
• both the doctor and hospital;
• a clinic or healthcare company;
• a medical tourism intermediary within the scope of its own obligations;
• or, in public-hospital cases, the responsible public administration.

Turkish Court of Cassation jurisprudence expressly recognises that a private hospital’s obligations are broader than simply providing a room in which a physician operates.

In a 2024 Grand Chamber decision, the Court explained that, as a general rule in private hospitals, the contractual relationship exists between the patient and the private hospital, through what Turkish law describes as a hospital admission contract. This relationship can include not only medical treatment but also nursing, accommodation and other hospital services. The predominant medical-treatment component is generally evaluated under mandate principles.

This distinction is crucial for foreign patients.

The hospital cannot necessarily avoid responsibility simply by saying:

“The operation was performed by the doctor, so the problem has nothing to do with us.”

At the same time, the doctor cannot automatically transfer all responsibility to the hospital.

The conduct of each defendant must be analysed separately.

First Question: Does a Failed Procedure Automatically Mean Someone Is Liable?

No.

This is the starting point for every malpractice case.

A medical procedure can fail even where the doctor and hospital complied with accepted medical standards.

Medicine involves biological uncertainty.

A cancer treatment may fail to produce remission.

A surgical wound may become infected despite appropriate precautions.

A dental implant may fail to integrate.

A recognised neurological complication may occur during a properly performed operation.

A patient may continue experiencing pain after medically appropriate treatment.

In ordinary therapeutic medicine, the doctor generally does not guarantee the medical result.

Turkish Court of Cassation jurisprudence treats ordinary private medical care principally through mandate-type obligations. Under this approach, the doctor and healthcare provider are responsible for exercising the required professional care rather than guaranteeing that the desired outcome will always be achieved.

The Court of Cassation stated again in a 2025 private hospital case that the healthcare provider is not liable merely because the intended result was not achieved. Responsibility arises where the professional effort, conduct or organisation failed to meet the legally required standard of care. At the same time, the Court stressed that professional healthcare providers must act carefully and that even relatively minor professional fault can be legally relevant.

Therefore:

failed treatment ≠ automatic malpractice.

The correct question is:

Why did the treatment fail?

When Is the Doctor Personally Responsible?

The doctor may be responsible where the injury results from a breach of professional medical duties personally attributable to that doctor.

Examples may include:

• incorrect diagnosis;
• failure to investigate symptoms;
• choosing an inappropriate procedure;
• operating without proper indication;
• technical surgical error;
• incorrect placement of an implant;
• injury to an anatomical structure through negligent technique;
• delayed recognition of a complication;
• failure to order necessary tests;
• premature discharge;
• inadequate postoperative review;
• failure to refer the patient to another specialist;
• inadequate informed consent.

The medical standard is normally determined through specialist expert evidence.

A court does not simply ask whether the patient is unhappy.

It asks whether the physician’s conduct complied with medical science and the professional care required in the individual circumstances.

Example: A Technical Surgical Error

Suppose a foreign patient undergoes spinal surgery in Istanbul.

During the procedure, the surgeon negligently damages a nerve in a manner inconsistent with accepted surgical technique.

The patient develops permanent weakness.

If expert evidence establishes:

1. negligent surgical technique;
2. resulting nerve damage;
3. a causal link between the error and permanent injury,

the surgeon may face personal medical malpractice responsibility.

But the analysis should not automatically stop there.

If the surgery was performed as part of a private hospital treatment relationship, the hospital’s contractual and institutional responsibility may also need to be examined.

When Is the Hospital Responsible?

A private hospital can face responsibility in several different ways.

The hospital may be responsible because:

the hospital itself was the patient’s contractual healthcare provider;

its employees or healthcare team performed negligent care;

or

the hospital’s own organisation was defective.

The Turkish Court of Cassation has emphasised that private hospitals undertake broad duties toward patients through the hospital admission relationship. These duties can include medical care together with the institutional services necessary for safe treatment.

Current Turkish private-hospital regulation also reflects this organisational role.

The Private Hospitals Regulation requires private hospitals to maintain specified standards concerning facilities, medical technology, staffing and continuous healthcare service. Private hospitals must operate continuously and regularly and provide care through their authorised specialties and medical units.

Accordingly, hospital responsibility can extend far beyond the surgeon’s hands.

Hospital Organisational Negligence

One of the most important concepts is organisational fault.

A hospital can be negligent even if no one proves that the surgeon’s operating technique was wrong.

Examples include:

• inadequate staffing;
• no suitable specialist available;
• delayed transfer to another hospital;
• defective emergency-response organisation;
• inadequate intensive-care facilities;
• delayed imaging;
• poor communication between departments;
• insufficient postoperative monitoring;
• record-keeping failures;
• infection-control failures;
• inappropriate nursing organisation.

The Court of Cassation addressed this directly in 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2025/1321, K. 2025/5054, dated 22 October 2025.

The dispute concerned alleged organisational fault by a private hospital in connection with the transfer and treatment of a newborn.

The Court stressed that doctors and hospitals are required to determine the patient’s condition promptly, take all necessary precautions and provide appropriate treatment without delay. It ordered further expert examination because allegations concerning the hospital’s transfer process and an administrative investigation had not been adequately addressed.

This decision illustrates an important principle:

A medically competent doctor does not automatically eliminate potential hospital liability.

Example: Surgeon Acts Correctly, Hospital Acts Negligently

Consider this scenario.

A patient undergoes abdominal surgery.

Several hours later, the surgeon correctly suspects internal bleeding and requests urgent imaging.

But the private hospital:

• has no appropriate radiology staff available;
• delays the examination for several hours;
• fails to arrange immediate transfer.

The patient eventually undergoes emergency surgery but suffers permanent organ damage because of the delay.

The central legal allegation may not be:

“The surgeon performed the original operation negligently.”

It may instead be:

“The hospital failed to organise timely diagnostic and emergency care.”

In such a case, the hospital may be the principal party responsible.

Can the Doctor and Hospital Both Be Responsible?

Yes.

This is common in private healthcare litigation.

A medical incident may involve both:

personal medical fault by the doctor, and

contractual or institutional fault by the hospital.

A 2025 Court of Cassation decision concerning malpractice by a doctor and private hospital stated that their relationship with the patient arose from mandate obligations and referred to their joint and several liability under Turkish Code of Obligations Article 61 in the circumstances of that case.

This does not mean that doctor and hospital are automatically jointly liable in every medical dispute.

The underlying facts and legal relationships must still be established.

But it does demonstrate that Turkish malpractice litigation is not necessarily an either/or choice between doctor and hospital.

Sometimes the legally correct answer to:

“Who should I sue?”

is:

both defendants.

Why Joint Liability Matters to Foreign Patients

Suppose a patient suffers €100,000 of compensable loss.

If both the doctor and hospital are legally responsible for the same damage under a joint-liability structure, the patient’s legal position can be materially stronger than a claim directed at only one actor.

This matters particularly where:

• the doctor has limited personal assets;
• the hospital has stronger financial resources;
• the exact division of fault is medically difficult to identify at the beginning;
• hospital organisation contributed to the same injury.

However, defendants should not be added without legal basis.

A properly structured claim should explain the alleged responsibility of each defendant.

Private Hospital Contract: Why the Hospital Itself Can Be the Main Defendant

A common foreign-patient assumption is:

“My surgeon caused the problem, therefore the hospital is irrelevant.”

Turkish law may approach the relationship differently.

The Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly explained in E. 2024/144, K. 2024/565 that, as a general rule, a patient admitted to a private hospital enters into a hospital admission contract with the hospital.

That relationship is considered a mixed contractual relationship containing medical and other hospital services.

The hospital may undertake not only treatment but also responsibilities associated with:

• nursing;
• accommodation;
• medical infrastructure;
• care organisation.

The Court further noted that the hospital must take the precautions required by the patient’s health status and the nature and severity of the condition even where every obligation has not been expressly written into the contract.

This is particularly important where the hospital tries to present itself as merely a landlord for the physician.

Can the Hospital Escape Liability Because the Surgeon Is “Independent”?

Not automatically.

The doctor’s employment or contractual status may matter.

But the hospital can still have independent obligations toward the patient.

For example, even if the surgeon is a separately practising physician, the hospital may still be responsible for its own:

• nursing team;
• operating-room systems;
• equipment;
• emergency response;
• record keeping;
• infection control;
• patient transfer;
• postoperative organisation.

Therefore, a hospital statement such as:

“Your problem must be discussed directly with your surgeon because he is independent”

should not automatically end the legal investigation.

The exact structure of the treatment relationship must be reviewed.

The Importance of the Invoice and Contract

Foreign patients should examine:

• whose name appears on the treatment agreement;
• who issued the invoice;
• which bank account received payment;
• which hospital admitted the patient;
• who employed or organised the healthcare staff;
• whether the doctor charged separately.

These documents can help determine whether the legal arrangement involved:

a hospital admission contract,

a separate doctor agreement,

or

multiple interconnected contracts.

The answer can affect who should be included in the claim.

What About a Clinic That Is Different From the Hospital?

Medical tourism creates another common structure.

A patient may discover a company online called, for example:

“Istanbul Aesthetic Clinic.”

The patient communicates with its coordinator.

The clinic sends the quotation.

The clinic collects the deposit.

But the operation is performed at a completely different private hospital.

In that situation, there can be at least three separate actors:

1. the clinic or medical tourism company;
2. the hospital;
3. the doctor.

Their responsibilities should not automatically be merged.

The doctor is responsible for professional medical conduct.

The hospital may be responsible for healthcare delivery and organisation.

The clinic may be responsible for the promises and services it undertook.

Medical Tourism Intermediaries: Are They Responsible?

Potentially, within the scope of their own service.

Turkey’s International Health Tourism and Tourist Health Regulation of 26 April 2025 specifically regulates both healthcare facilities and intermediary organisations.

Importantly, the Regulation states that during the international patient’s stay in Turkey, the healthcare facility and intermediary organisation are responsible according to the type of service they provide, and expressly states that complications and medical malpractice arising after healthcare are included within the relevant responsibility framework.

This provision should not be read as meaning that every travel intermediary automatically becomes medically responsible for every surgical error.

Instead, the actual service supplied by each entity must be identified.

Example: When the Medical Tourism Company May Matter

Suppose a medical tourism provider tells a British patient:

“Professor X will personally perform your operation.”

The patient chooses the package because of that promise.

After surgery, the patient discovers that another doctor performed substantial parts of the procedure.

The intermediary’s potential responsibility may involve:

• contractual representation;
• misleading information;
• the service it promised to organise.

If the operation itself was also negligently performed, the hospital and doctor may face separate medical liability.

A single factual event can therefore generate different claims against different defendants.

Failed Treatment Versus Medical Malpractice

Before deciding whether the doctor, hospital or both are liable, the patient must distinguish failure from fault.

A failed procedure can fall into several categories.

Category 1: Proper Treatment, Unavoidable Poor Result

No malpractice may exist.

Category 2: Doctor’s Personal Medical Error

The doctor may be primarily responsible, potentially together with the hospital depending on the contractual and factual structure.

Category 3: Hospital Organisational Failure

Hospital liability may exist even if the surgeon’s technical conduct was proper.

Category 4: Both Medical and Organisational Negligence

Both doctor and hospital may be responsible.

Category 5: Inadequate Informed Consent

Responsibility can arise even without proven technical medical error.

Category 6: Result-Oriented Aesthetic Procedure

The analysis may focus not only on negligence but also on whether the promised aesthetic result was achieved.

These categories should not be confused.

What If the Procedure Was Technically Correct but the Patient Was Not Properly Informed?

This is a particularly important area.

A patient can potentially establish liability based on defective informed consent even where experts find no technical malpractice.

In Yargıtay 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2026/87, K. 2026/3186, dated 20 May 2026, expert evidence found no medical technical fault in the procedure.

Nevertheless, the courts found the consent documentation insufficient and the defendants were unable to prove adequate oral information had been provided.

The Court of Cassation upheld compensation.

The decision also made an important distinction regarding responsibility: a physician who merely made the diagnosis but did not perform the disputed intervention was not treated as responsible for the failure to obtain consent for that intervention.

This is a strong example of why responsibility must be linked to the particular legal duty each defendant actually had.

Who Is Responsible for Informed Consent: Doctor or Hospital?

Potentially both can become relevant, depending on the facts.

The Patient Rights Regulation applies broadly to both public and private healthcare institutions and the healthcare personnel participating in treatment.

The patient must be adequately informed before medical intervention.

Where a hospital provides a treatment process using standard forms, international patient departments and healthcare staff, institutional responsibilities can become relevant.

At the same time, the medical professional responsible for the intervention has a central role in providing the substantive medical information necessary for informed consent.

A clinic salesperson saying:

“Don’t worry, the procedure is completely safe”

is not an adequate substitute for proper medical informed consent.

Why This Matters More for Foreign Patients

Language creates an additional layer of risk.

A patient may speak only English, German, Arabic, French or another language.

If the hospital obtains only a Turkish-language signature without ensuring that the patient understood:

• the procedure;
• alternatives;
• complications;
• important risks,

the validity of the informed-consent process can become disputed.

A signed document should therefore not automatically be treated as conclusive evidence that all risks were validly accepted.

Cosmetic Surgery: Doctor or Hospital Responsibility Can Be Different

Purely aesthetic surgery requires special treatment under Turkish case law.

In ordinary therapeutic medicine, the doctor generally undertakes professional care, not a guaranteed cure.

But Turkish Court of Cassation jurisprudence frequently classifies purely aesthetic, result-oriented procedures as contracts for work — eser sözleşmesi.

In Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/1507, K. 2025/1137, dated 19 March 2025, the Court considered an aesthetic eyelid procedure and stressed the result-oriented nature of the relationship.

It held that the case could not be resolved simply by saying that residual asymmetry and scarring were recognised complications. The contractual obligation concerning the promised aesthetic result also had to be examined.

[Note for publication: replace this citation with the confirmed Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber E. 2024/1507, K. 2025/1137 source if your website’s CMS preserves legal-source links.]

This difference can materially affect both doctor and hospital liability.

Aesthetic Failure Does Not Automatically Mean the Doctor Must Pay

Even in aesthetic cases, liability is not automatic.

The court should establish:

• what result was actually promised;
• patient’s preoperative condition;
• realistic biological limitations;
• whether the defect is objectively established;
• whether the provider fulfilled the result obligation.

A patient cannot necessarily obtain compensation simply because:

“I expected to look better.”

There should be an objectively identifiable difference between the agreed result and actual legally defective outcome.

Can the Hospital Be Responsible for a Failed Aesthetic Procedure?

Potentially, yes.

If the patient purchased the aesthetic treatment through a private hospital, the hospital may itself be part of the contractual healthcare relationship.

Recent Turkish aesthetic litigation commonly includes both the doctor and private healthcare provider as defendants.

Therefore, a patient should not automatically direct a failed cosmetic-surgery claim only against the surgeon without examining:

• contract;
• invoice;
• hospital records;
• provider representations.

Dental Treatment: Another Important Example

Foreign dental patients frequently encounter multi-party responsibility.

A patient may receive:

• implant surgery from one dentist;
• prosthetic treatment from another;
• laboratory work through the clinic;
• imaging at the hospital.

If the final treatment fails, the legal investigation may need to determine precisely where the failure arose.

Was the implant incorrectly positioned?

Was the prosthesis defective?

Was the wrong treatment plan selected?

Did the clinic fail to coordinate the treatment?

Different defendants can bear responsibility for different stages.

What If the Failure Was Caused by Hospital Equipment?

This is a classic hospital responsibility scenario.

The Civil General Assembly’s analysis of private hospital contracts recognises that the hospital’s obligations include precautions connected with medical equipment and infrastructure. It specifically discusses examples such as defective instruments and other hospital-care failures as matters capable of engaging hospital responsibility.

Examples might include:

• malfunctioning monitoring equipment;
• defective sterilisation equipment;
• equipment unavailable during an emergency;
• defective medical infrastructure.

These are not necessarily surgeon faults.

What If the Failure Was Caused by Nurses or Other Hospital Staff?

Hospital treatment involves many healthcare professionals.

Potential problems may include:

• incorrect medication administration;
• failure to report abnormal vital signs;
• inadequate postoperative observation;
• incorrect wound care;
• failure to alert the doctor to deterioration.

The hospital’s responsibility can therefore extend to institutional care supplied by its healthcare team.

The patient should request:

• nursing notes;
• medication charts;
• vital-sign records;
• consultation records.

These documents can identify whether the problem occurred outside the operating room.

What If There Are No Medical Records Showing What Happened?

Missing records are a serious evidential issue.

Private hospitals are subject to regulatory requirements concerning medical records and archives, and patient-rights rules recognise patients’ access to health-related files.

If the hospital cannot produce important documentation such as:

• operative report;
• anaesthesia chart;
• postoperative observations;
• consent records,

the legal significance of those missing records should be examined rather than simply accepting:

“We do not have them.”

A hospital’s responsibility includes proper organisation of medical documentation.

What If the Doctor Blames the Hospital and the Hospital Blames the Doctor?

This is exactly why the patient should avoid accepting informal blame-shifting.

The doctor may say:

“The hospital’s nurses failed to monitor you.”

The hospital may say:

“Your surgeon was responsible for follow-up.”

The patient is not normally expected to resolve complex internal professional responsibility alone before seeking legal protection.

The medical and contractual evidence should be examined to determine the duties of each defendant.

In an appropriate case, both may be included and the court can assess their respective responsibilities based on expert evidence.

What Evidence Helps Determine Who Is Responsible?

Foreign patients should preserve:

• treatment contract;
• quotation;
• invoices;
• payment records;
• medical tourism package;
• operative report;
• anaesthesia file;
• nursing records;
• consent forms;
• laboratory results;
• scans;
• discharge summary;
• WhatsApp communications;
• advertisements;
• foreign corrective-treatment reports.

The evidence should allow the lawyer to create a responsibility map:

Doctor → medical decision and procedure

Hospital → organisation, staff, facilities and institutional care

Clinic → contractual service and representations

Intermediary → tourism and coordination services undertaken

This is often more useful than simply asking “who made the mistake?”

Private Versus Public Hospital: A Major Difference

The above discussion primarily concerns private healthcare.

Public hospitals operate under a different compensation system.

Article 129 of the Turkish Constitution provides that compensation claims arising from faults committed by public officials while exercising their authority are brought against the administration, subject to recourse against the responsible public official.

Accordingly, if malpractice occurred at a Turkish state hospital, the patient generally does not simply sue the individual public doctor in the same way that a private physician might be sued.

The principal compensation claim is ordinarily directed against the responsible public administration in administrative jurisdiction.

The doctor’s potential criminal or disciplinary responsibility is a separate question.

Can a Public Doctor Still Be Personally Responsible in Other Ways?

Potentially.

The administrative compensation system does not mean the healthcare professional can never face consequences.

Separate issues may involve:

• criminal liability;
• disciplinary proceedings;
• recourse by the administration.

However, the patient’s primary compensation route for duty-related public-hospital malpractice is generally against the administration under the constitutional structure.

This distinction is crucial when identifying the correct defendant.

Foreign Patient Example 1: Doctor Primarily Responsible

A UK patient undergoes private rhinoplasty in Istanbul.

Expert review finds that the surgeon removed excessive structural support contrary to accepted surgical standards, producing major breathing problems and deformity.

Hospital nursing and postoperative care were appropriate.

The case may primarily concern the surgeon’s medical and aesthetic obligations, although the hospital’s contractual position should still be evaluated.

Foreign Patient Example 2: Hospital Primarily Responsible

A German patient undergoes surgery.

The operation is technically correct.

During postoperative recovery, the patient develops signs of severe internal bleeding.

Nursing staff fail to escalate abnormal vital signs.

Necessary imaging is delayed.

The patient suffers permanent injury.

The central claim may focus heavily on hospital organisation and postoperative care.

Foreign Patient Example 3: Both Responsible

A Dutch patient undergoes bariatric surgery.

The surgeon negligently causes a bowel injury.

The hospital also fails to recognise the patient’s deterioration and delays emergency imaging and revision surgery.

Both the original medical error and hospital management may contribute to the final injury.

This is the classic type of case in which responsibility may extend to more than one defendant.

Foreign Patient Example 4: No Technical Error but No Valid Consent

A foreign patient undergoes an elective intervention.

Experts later conclude that the technique was medically acceptable and the complication was recognised.

However, the hospital and treating physician cannot demonstrate that the patient was adequately informed about the relevant risk.

The 2026 Court of Cassation informed-consent decision shows that compensation can still become relevant in this type of situation.

Foreign Patient Example 5: No Malpractice

A patient undergoes medically appropriate treatment.

A recognised complication occurs.

The risk was properly disclosed.

The complication was promptly detected and appropriately treated.

The poor result is unfortunate but not attributable to negligence or another legal violation.

Neither doctor nor hospital may be liable merely because the medical outcome was disappointing.

This scenario is just as important as the previous examples because malpractice law does not operate as automatic medical-result insurance.

Should the Patient Sue the Hospital First Because It Has More Money?

The correct defendant should not be chosen simply according to perceived financial strength.

A claim must have a legal basis.

However, where the hospital is genuinely contractually or institutionally responsible, omitting it from the claim can be a serious mistake.

Likewise, suing the hospital alone can be inadequate where an individual doctor’s separate responsibility is legally relevant.

The strategy should follow the evidence.

Should the Doctor Always Be Included?

No.

The 2026 informed-consent decision provides a useful example.

The Court accepted that a physician involved only in diagnosis, but not in performing the disputed intervention, was not responsible for the failure to obtain informed consent for that procedure.

This demonstrates that defendants should not be included simply because their names appear somewhere in the medical file.

Responsibility must be linked to the disputed duty.

Can a Medical Tourism Intermediary Be Sued Together With the Hospital?

Potentially, depending on the legal and factual relationship.

The 2025 International Health Tourism Regulation expressly states that healthcare facilities and intermediary organisations are responsible according to the type of service they provide and brings complications and medical malpractice within that regulatory responsibility framework.

However, legal liability still needs to be particularised.

An intermediary arranging hotel accommodation is not necessarily responsible for surgical technique.

An intermediary making false healthcare representations or failing within obligations it specifically undertook may present a different case.

What Compensation Can Be Claimed?

Once the responsible party or parties are established, the patient may potentially claim qualifying losses caused by the failed treatment.

These can include:

• corrective medical treatment;
• revision surgery;
• medication;
• rehabilitation;
• lost earnings;
• permanent reduction in working capacity;
• future treatment expenses;
• non-material damages.

In aesthetic procedures, remedies can additionally include contractual mechanisms such as:

• correction;
• price reduction;
• withdrawal/refund,

depending on the legal classification and circumstances.

Liability and damages are separate questions.

The patient must establish both.

Can Corrective Treatment Abroad Be Claimed From the Doctor or Hospital?

Potentially, if:

• malpractice is established;
• corrective treatment was reasonably necessary;
• there is a causal connection;
• the expenses are properly documented.

A foreign patient may undergo revision surgery in London, Berlin, Amsterdam or Paris.

The fact that the treatment occurred outside Turkey does not automatically make the cost legally irrelevant.

The patient should preserve:

• independent medical reports;
• treatment plan;
• invoice;
• proof of payment;
• revision operative report.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the doctor or hospital responsible when surgery fails in Turkey?

It depends on why the surgery failed. Doctor liability may arise from personal medical negligence; hospital liability can arise from the contractual healthcare relationship or organisational failures. In some cases, both can be responsible.

Does a failed operation automatically prove malpractice?

No. Ordinary therapeutic medicine does not generally guarantee a successful outcome. The patient must establish a legally relevant failure such as negligence, defective organisation or lack of informed consent.

Can I sue both the doctor and hospital?

Potentially. A 2025 Court of Cassation malpractice decision confirmed joint and several responsibility of doctor and private hospital in the circumstances of that case.

Is the private hospital responsible for the doctor’s mistake?

Potentially, depending on the healthcare contract and circumstances. Turkish Court of Cassation jurisprudence generally recognises a contractual relationship between the private hospital and admitted patient and imposes broad hospital-care duties on the hospital operator.

Can the hospital be liable if the surgeon did nothing wrong?

Yes, potentially. Hospital organisational fault can arise from deficient staffing, transfer procedures, emergency response, monitoring or other institutional failures.

Can the hospital say the surgeon was independent?

That does not automatically eliminate the hospital’s own institutional and contractual obligations. The precise treatment relationship must be reviewed.

Is a complication enough to avoid liability?

No. The provider must still establish that treatment complied with accepted standards, the complication was appropriately handled and informed consent requirements were satisfied.

Can lack of informed consent create liability even without medical error?

Yes. In a 20 May 2026 Court of Cassation decision, compensation was upheld despite no technical malpractice because adequate informed consent was not proven.

Who has to prove informed consent?

Current Turkish jurisprudence places the burden of demonstrating adequate informed consent on the healthcare defendants responsible for the relevant intervention.

Is cosmetic surgery different?

Yes. Purely aesthetic procedures can be treated as result-oriented contracts for work, meaning the court may examine whether the agreed aesthetic result was delivered in addition to ordinary medical care.

Can a medical tourism company also be responsible?

Potentially, within the scope of services and representations it undertook. The current international health-tourism regulation separately addresses responsibility of healthcare facilities and intermediary organisations.

Who is responsible in a state hospital?

For duty-related malpractice by public healthcare personnel, compensation claims are generally directed against the responsible administration rather than simply against the individual public doctor.

Can foreign patients sue both hospital and doctor in Turkey?

Potentially, yes. Foreign nationality does not itself prevent claims arising from private medical treatment in Turkey.

What evidence shows who is responsible?

The most important evidence can include the treatment contract, invoice, operative report, nursing records, consent forms, payment documents, hospital records, WhatsApp correspondence and independent medical expert reports.

Conclusion: The Correct Defendant Depends on Why the Medical Procedure Failed

When a medical procedure in Turkey fails, the patient should not immediately assume:

“The surgeon is the only person responsible.”

Nor should the patient assume:

“The hospital must pay simply because the operation happened there.”

Turkish medical malpractice law requires a more careful analysis.

The first issue is whether there was any legal fault at all.

In ordinary therapeutic medicine, neither the doctor nor the hospital normally guarantees that every patient will recover or obtain the hoped-for medical outcome.

A failed result can occur despite proper treatment.

The Court of Cassation repeatedly states that mandate-based medical responsibility focuses on whether the healthcare provider acted with the required professional care rather than whether the desired result was ultimately achieved.

Once fault is suspected, the responsibilities of the doctor and hospital should be separated.

The doctor is responsible for professional medical conduct.

That can include:

diagnosis,

treatment selection,

surgical technique,

complication management,

postoperative medical decisions,

and

informed consent.

The private hospital can have a broader institutional role.

The Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly has explained that, as a general rule, the relationship between a patient and private hospital is itself contractual through the hospital admission relationship.

The hospital undertakes medical treatment and other healthcare-related services and must take the measures required by the patient’s condition even where every obligation is not expressly written into the contract.

This means that the hospital can face responsibility for its own organisation.

A surgeon may perform technically correct treatment, yet the hospital may still be legally responsible if the patient suffers because of:

delayed transfer,

inadequate staffing,

poor postoperative monitoring,

failure of emergency response,

deficient hospital systems,

or another organisational failure.

The Court of Cassation’s 22 October 2025 organisational-fault decision is especially significant.

The Court required a proper expert investigation of a private hospital’s transfer procedures and alleged delay rather than reducing the case to a narrow analysis of individual medical technique.

Doctor and hospital responsibility can also coexist.

A 2025 Court of Cassation malpractice decision concerning a doctor and private hospital expressly referred to joint and several responsibility under Turkish Code of Obligations Article 61 in that case.

Accordingly, foreign patients should not automatically choose between:

doctor OR hospital.

The correct answer may be:

doctor AND hospital.

But liability should still be established individually.

Not every person whose name appears in the patient’s file should be sued.

This principle is visible in the Court of Cassation’s important 20 May 2026 informed-consent decision.

Although compensation was upheld because adequate informed consent had not been proven, the Court distinguished a doctor who merely participated in diagnosis and did not perform the disputed medical intervention. That physician was not treated as responsible for the missing consent concerning an intervention he had not performed.

This shows the correct methodology:

identify the duty → identify who owed it → determine whether that duty was breached → determine whether the breach caused damage.

Foreign medical tourism creates an additional level of complexity.

A patient may contract with a clinic brand, pay a medical tourism company, receive treatment at another hospital and be operated on by a separately identified physician.

The 2025 International Health Tourism and Tourist Health Regulation expressly distinguishes healthcare facilities and intermediary organisations and states that they are responsible according to the type of service they provide. Complications and medical malpractice are expressly included within that regulatory responsibility framework.

Accordingly, a foreign patient’s legal investigation should identify each entity separately.

Do not rely only on the name used on Instagram.

Determine:

Who signed the contract?

Who received the money?

Who issued the invoice?

Who performed the operation?

Who provided the nursing care?

Who controlled postoperative communication?

Who promised the result?

The answers may reveal several different responsible parties.

Aesthetic treatment creates another important distinction.

Where a procedure is purely cosmetic and result-oriented, Turkish Court of Cassation jurisprudence can treat the relationship as a contract for work rather than ordinary therapeutic mandate.

The relevant legal question can then extend beyond:

“Was the operation technically negligent?”

to:

“Did the provider deliver the agreed aesthetic result?”

This is why a clinic may not always defeat a failed cosmetic-surgery claim merely by saying the remaining problem was a known complication.

The promised result, informed consent and final objective outcome may all require examination.

Public hospitals must be treated differently.

Article 129 of the Turkish Constitution establishes that compensation claims arising from faults of public officials committed while exercising public authority are brought against the administration, subject to recourse against the responsible official.

Therefore, a foreign patient harmed at a state hospital should not automatically file the same type of claim against the individual doctor that would be considered in a private hospital case.

The correct administrative compensation route must first be determined.

Ultimately, the question:

“Doctor or hospital?”

should be answered only after reconstructing the entire treatment process.

A strong medical malpractice investigation should examine:

the doctor’s decisions,

the hospital’s organisation,

the contractual relationship,

the informed-consent process,

the medical records,

the postoperative timeline,

and the role of every medical tourism provider involved.

Foreign patients should therefore preserve:

• contracts;
• invoices;
• bank payments;
• operative reports;
• nursing observations;
• consent forms;
• scans;
• laboratory results;
• WhatsApp messages;
• advertisements;
• corrective-treatment reports.

These documents can show not only whether malpractice occurred, but also who should legally answer for it.

If you suffered permanent injury, a serious complication, failed cosmetic surgery, defective dental treatment or another harmful outcome after medical treatment in Turkey, determining whether responsibility belongs to the doctor, hospital or both should be completed before a compensation claim is filed. Suing the wrong party can cause delay, while a careful analysis may reveal hospital organisational responsibility or joint liability that is not obvious from the medical procedure alone.

Legal Disclaimer

This article provides general information concerning doctor and hospital responsibility for unsuccessful medical treatment under Turkish law as of September 2026. It does not constitute individual legal advice.

Responsibility depends on the treatment type, private or public status of the healthcare institution, contractual relationship, professional medical evidence, hospital organisation, informed-consent process, role of any intermediary and causal connection between the alleged breach and resulting injury.

A failed medical procedure alone does not establish liability.

Each case should therefore be individually reviewed before deciding whether the appropriate claim should be directed against the doctor, hospital, clinic, medical tourism intermediary, public administration or more than one responsible party.