Breast Implant and Cosmetic Surgery Malpractice Claims in Turkey

Breast augmentation, breast lift, breast reduction and other aesthetic breast procedures are among the cosmetic surgeries frequently sought by international patients travelling to Turkey.

Patients may travel to Istanbul, Antalya, Izmir or another Turkish city for:

• breast augmentation with implants;
• breast lift;
• breast reduction;
• implant replacement;
• correction of breast asymmetry;
• revision surgery;
• combined breast lift and augmentation.

Many procedures produce satisfactory results.

However, some foreign patients return home with problems such as:

• significant asymmetry;
• implant displacement;
• visible implant malposition;
• severe scarring;
• infection;
• wound breakdown;
• tissue necrosis;
• breast deformity;
• implant rupture;
• persistent pain;
• loss or alteration of nipple sensation;
• repeated need for revision surgery;
• an aesthetic result materially different from what was promised.

When this happens, patients are frequently told:

“This is a known complication.”

“Your body rejected the implant.”

“The result is caused by your skin.”

“You need to wait another twelve months.”

“We can perform a free revision if you return to Turkey.”

Sometimes these explanations may be medically correct.

Breast surgery involves genuine biological uncertainty, and not every disappointing result constitutes medical malpractice.

At the same time, Turkish law does not allow every failed cosmetic result to be dismissed merely because the provider labels it a complication.

This is especially important because current Turkish Court of Cassation jurisprudence generally treats purely aesthetic surgery as a contract for work — eser sözleşmesi — carrying a result-oriented obligation.

In Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/3670, K. 2025/3903, dated 17 November 2025, the Court considered an aesthetic breast procedure involving breast reduction/lift. Although expert findings indicated that the remaining scars were not the result of technical medical error and were connected with the patient’s individual biological characteristics, the Court emphasised the result obligation inherent in an aesthetic works contract. It concluded that the promised aesthetic result had not been fully achieved and that the work was legally defective, requiring reconsideration of material and non-material compensation.

But the Court of Cassation has also made clear that result obligation does not mean automatic liability for every unsatisfactory appearance.

In Yargıtay 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2025/3014, K. 2026/2257, dated 21 May 2026, a breast aesthetic claim was dismissed where specialist expert evidence found that the complained-of contour depressions arose from the patient’s loose skin and limited subcutaneous fatty tissue, that the outcome could not reasonably have been predicted beforehand and that no fault attributable to the physician was established. The Court upheld the dismissal.

Taken together, these decisions provide an important framework:

Aesthetic breast surgery can create a result obligation, but the provider is not absolutely liable for every biological outcome.

The case must determine:

• what result was promised;
• whether the actual result is objectively defective;
• whether the result is attributable to the surgeon or healthcare provider;
• whether a complication was properly managed;
• whether the patient was adequately informed;
• whether further treatment was reasonably necessary.

For foreign patients, these questions determine whether a failed breast surgery is simply an unfortunate complication or a legally actionable malpractice and defective-performance claim.

What Types of Breast Surgery Can Give Rise to Malpractice Claims?

Claims can arise from many different forms of aesthetic breast treatment.

Breast Augmentation

Breast augmentation usually involves placement of implants to increase volume or alter shape.

Possible disputes include:

• incorrect implant positioning;
• significant size asymmetry;
• displacement;
• visible contour problems;
• infection;
• excessive scarring;
• implant-related complications;
• need for early revision.

Breast Lift

Breast lift surgery aims to change the position and shape of breast tissue.

Claims may concern:

• major residual drooping;
• severe asymmetry;
• nipple-position problems;
• excessive scarring;
• tissue healing problems;
• necrosis.

Breast Reduction

Breast reduction may have both aesthetic and functional purposes.

A patient may complain that:

• the promised reduction was not achieved;
• the breasts remain materially larger than agreed;
• severe deformity arose;
• scarring is excessive;
• additional surgery became necessary.

The Court of Cassation’s November 2025 decision is particularly important for this category because it involved aesthetic breast reduction/lift and expressly applied the works-contract result obligation.

Breast Implant Revision

Revision procedures can themselves become malpractice claims where the patient alleges:

• previous problems were not corrected;
• a new deformity was created;
• the wrong implant was used;
• implant positioning became worse;
• additional unnecessary procedures were performed.

The existence of multiple operations is not automatic proof of malpractice, but the reasons for each revision can become highly important evidence.

When Does a Breast Implant Complication Become Medical Malpractice?

A breast surgery complication can become legally actionable in several different ways.

The most common situations include:

1. the complication was caused by negligent surgical technique;
2. the surgeon selected an inappropriate procedure or implant;
3. the complication was not recognised in time;
4. complication management was inadequate;
5. informed consent was defective;
6. the promised aesthetic result was not achieved;
7. hospital organisation contributed to the damage;
8. the implant itself was defective.

These categories should be analysed separately.

1. Negligent Surgical Technique

A recognised complication does not necessarily mean that the complication was unavoidable in the individual case.

For example, implant displacement may theoretically occur after breast augmentation.

However, expert review may still need to determine whether:

• the implant pocket was created correctly;
• the implant was positioned appropriately;
• the chosen technique complied with accepted medical standards;
• postoperative instructions were adequate.

Likewise, tissue injury or severe deformity may theoretically occur as a complication, but a court-appointed medical expert must determine whether the actual damage resulted from negligent technique.

The legal question is not merely:

“Can this complication happen?”

It is:

“Why did it happen in this patient?”

2. Inappropriate Implant or Procedure Selection

A malpractice dispute can begin before the operation itself.

The doctor must evaluate whether the proposed procedure is medically and aesthetically appropriate for the patient.

Relevant factors may include:

• existing anatomy;
• skin quality;
• breast tissue;
• previous surgery;
• health conditions;
• realistic aesthetic objectives.

Suppose a patient has particular anatomical characteristics that materially increase the likelihood of a poor outcome.

The legal issue may concern whether:

• those characteristics should have been recognised;
• the patient should have been advised differently;
• another technique should have been recommended;
• the patient should have been warned that the desired result was unrealistic.

This issue connects directly with the 2026 Court of Cassation decision.

There, expert evidence concluded that the complained-of breast contour result arose from the patient’s tissue characteristics and could not reasonably have been predicted beforehand. Because the adverse result was not attributed to the physician, the dismissal was upheld.

This demonstrates that patient-specific anatomy can be a valid defence when supported by specialist evidence.

But merely saying:

“Your body caused the problem”

is not enough.

The conclusion should be medically established.

3. Implant Displacement and Malposition

Breast implant malposition can produce visible deformity.

The implant may appear:

• too high;
• too low;
• too far to one side;
• asymmetrical compared with the other breast.

Whether this constitutes malpractice depends on the cause.

Possible questions include:

• Was implant placement technically correct?
• Did the patient’s tissue characteristics cause later movement?
• Was implant selection appropriate?
• Did the patient comply with postoperative instructions?
• Was the problem recognised and treated properly?

A revision surgeon’s operative report can be particularly valuable.

If the revision surgeon documents a technical defect in the original implant pocket or placement, that can become important evidence in the Turkish claim.

4. Capsular Contracture

Capsular contracture can occur after breast implantation and is not automatically evidence of malpractice.

The legal analysis should focus on:

• whether it is a recognised complication in the circumstances;
• whether preventive and postoperative medical standards were followed;
• whether the patient was adequately informed about the risk;
• how severe the condition became;
• whether it was properly diagnosed and managed.

A patient should therefore avoid assuming either:

“Capsular contracture always means the surgeon was negligent,”

or

“Capsular contracture can never result in liability.”

Both statements are too broad.

The specific treatment process must be reviewed.

5. Breast Implant Rupture

Implant rupture raises particularly important questions because the cause may not necessarily be surgical malpractice.

A rupture might potentially involve:

• surgical handling;
• trauma;
• later deterioration;
• product defect.

If the evidence suggests that the implant itself was unsafe or defective, the legal analysis can extend beyond the doctor and hospital.

Turkey’s Product Safety and Technical Regulations Law No. 7223 establishes a general product-safety framework and separately identifies responsibilities of economic operators such as manufacturers, importers and distributors. The Ministry of Trade also describes product liability and traceability as core elements of the statutory framework.

Accordingly, an implant-related injury can potentially raise two separate legal investigations:

Was the surgery defective?

and

Was the medical device itself defective?

The patient should preserve the implant documentation rather than assuming every rupture is attributable to the surgeon.

Obtain the Implant Details

Foreign patients should request documentation identifying:

• manufacturer;
• implant model;
• size;
• serial or lot information where recorded;
• date of implantation.

These details can become extremely important where:

• product defect is suspected;
• recall or safety information later arises;
• revision surgery confirms implant failure.

The complete medical record is therefore essential.

6. Infection After Breast Implant Surgery

Infection is a recognised surgical risk.

Its occurrence alone does not automatically prove negligence.

However, responsibility may arise where there is evidence of:

• inadequate preventive measures;
• delayed recognition;
• delayed antibiotic treatment;
• failure to remove or revise the implant where medically required;
• inadequate hospital infection-control procedures.

The legal focus is therefore not simply:

“Did the patient develop infection?”

It is:

“Was the infection prevented, recognised and managed according to accepted standards?”

A patient who reports worsening pain, fever, redness or wound problems should preserve every communication with the clinic.

Postoperative WhatsApp messages can become particularly important where the clinic advised the patient to wait rather than seek urgent medical care.

7. Tissue Necrosis and Wound Breakdown

Breast lift, reduction and implant procedures can involve tissue-healing risks.

Serious cases may involve:

• wound separation;
• skin loss;
• nipple or areolar tissue damage;
• necrosis.

These events can result from recognised surgical risks.

But the malpractice analysis should still consider:

• preoperative risk assessment;
• surgical technique;
• blood supply;
• postoperative monitoring;
• speed of response when tissue problems appeared.

If the complication was unavoidable but the provider failed to recognise deterioration quickly enough, responsibility may still arise from complication management.

8. Severe Scarring After Breast Surgery

Scarring is one of the most important legal issues in aesthetic breast surgery because some surgical scars are inherent in the procedure.

The Court of Cassation’s November 2025 breast aesthetic decision provides a particularly important example.

Expert findings indicated that the dark scars around and below the nipple region were not caused by a technical medical mistake and were connected with the patient’s own biological characteristics.

Nevertheless, the Court emphasised that aesthetic surgery was governed by works-contract principles and that the promised aesthetic result had not been fully delivered. It concluded that the result was defective for purposes of the contractual claim and required consideration of damages.

This decision should not be interpreted as meaning:

“Any visible scar after breast surgery creates automatic liability.”

The court still needs to identify the promised result and evaluate the individual case.

But it demonstrates that in aesthetic surgery:

no technical medical fault and no contractual liability are not necessarily the same conclusion.

Why Aesthetic Breast Surgery Is Legally Different

In ordinary therapeutic medicine, Turkish courts generally apply a professional-care model.

The physician must provide medically appropriate care but normally does not guarantee cure.

Aesthetic surgery can be different.

The patient frequently seeks a specific external result.

For example:

• smaller breasts;
• lifted breasts;
• more symmetrical breasts;
• increased volume;
• particular implant appearance.

Turkish Court of Cassation jurisprudence therefore treats purely aesthetic procedures as contracts for work in appropriate circumstances.

A contract for work focuses on the creation of an agreed result.

The November 2025 breast decision clearly states that where the promised result does not occur, the provider’s performance may be treated as incomplete or defective even though expert evidence finds no classic technical surgical negligence.

But “Result Obligation” Does Not Mean Guaranteed Perfection

This point is essential.

Aesthetic surgery is performed on the human body.

Results are affected by:

• anatomy;
• tissue quality;
• scar formation;
• healing;
• postoperative compliance.

The May 2026 Court of Cassation decision confirms that the result-oriented nature of aesthetic surgery does not impose absolute liability.

The relevant specialist reports found that contour depressions after breast surgery arose from loose skin and limited subcutaneous fat, could not have been predicted beforehand and were not attributable to physician fault.

The Court upheld dismissal.

Therefore, the correct legal principle is:

The provider undertakes the agreed aesthetic result, but liability still requires the unsuccessful result to be legally attributable to the provider under the circumstances.

What Was Actually Promised?

This can become one of the most important issues in the lawsuit.

A patient may say:

“I asked for smaller breasts.”

The surgeon may say:

“We agreed only to lift them.”

Or:

Patient: “I was promised that both breasts would be symmetrical.”

Clinic: “Perfect symmetry was never guaranteed.”

Evidence of the agreed objective can include:

• consultation messages;
• WhatsApp;
• email;
• treatment plan;
• package description;
• before-and-after simulations;
• advertisements;
• photographs discussed with the surgeon.

The clearer the agreed result, the easier it becomes to assess whether contractual performance was defective.

Breast Asymmetry After Surgery

Perfect natural symmetry does not exist in every human body.

Minor asymmetry may not constitute legally defective performance.

But severe or newly created asymmetry may require investigation.

Experts may compare:

• preoperative condition;
• surgical plan;
• implant sizes;
• postoperative photographs;
• revision findings.

The patient should preserve the clinic’s own preoperative photographs.

Without them, the provider may later argue that the asymmetry existed before surgery.

Informed Consent Is a Separate Legal Issue

Even where technical malpractice is not established, inadequate informed consent can create liability.

Turkey’s Patient Rights Regulation requires patients to receive information concerning matters including:

• who will perform the intervention;
• how it will be performed;
• alternatives;
• benefits and risks;
• possible complications.

The information must be communicated in a manner the patient can understand, and the Regulation expressly contemplates appropriate communication and, where needed, interpretation.

This is highly relevant to international cosmetic surgery.

Foreign Patients and Turkish-Language Consent Forms

A British or German patient may be given a stack of Turkish documents shortly before surgery.

The patient may sign without understanding:

• implant-related risks;
• scarring;
• infection;
• sensory changes;
• possibility of revision;
• asymmetry.

A signature alone does not necessarily establish valid informed consent.

The Turkish Constitutional Court’s Ahmet Acartürk judgment emphasises that meaningful participation in treatment decisions requires sufficient information regarding the procedure and relevant risks. It also states that the burden of proving informed consent for the specific intervention rests with the doctor or hospital.

For foreign breast surgery patients, important evidence includes:

• language of the consent form;
• interpreter involvement;
• consultation notes;
• messages explaining risks;
• timing of signature.

Consent to a Complication Is Not Consent to Negligence

Suppose a breast augmentation consent form clearly warns about infection.

The patient understands and signs it.

An infection later develops.

That does not automatically prevent a malpractice claim if the allegation is that:

• infection was ignored;
• treatment was delayed;
• hospital systems were inadequate.

The patient accepts the inherent risk of a properly performed procedure.

The patient does not consent to substandard healthcare.

Doctor or Hospital: Who Is Responsible?

A breast surgery claim may involve several defendants.

Potential defendants can include:

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

The correct defendant analysis requires examination of:

• treatment contract;
• invoice;
• payment receipt;
• hospital admission;
• doctor identity;
• postoperative communication.

The commercial name used on Instagram may not be the legal healthcare provider.

Hospital Responsibility

A private hospital may have responsibilities separate from the surgeon.

For example:

• nursing care;
• infection control;
• operating-room systems;
• emergency response;
• medical records;
• postoperative monitoring.

Therefore, even if the surgeon’s technical conduct was acceptable, the hospital can potentially face responsibility where organisational failures worsened the patient’s condition.

A malpractice investigation should examine the entire treatment pathway rather than focusing only on the operating doctor.

Medical Tourism Companies

Turkey’s International Health Tourism and Tourist Health Regulation, published on 26 April 2025, requires healthcare facilities and intermediary organisations operating in international health tourism to obtain the relevant authorisation and establishes service standards for international patients.

The Regulation distinguishes between:

healthcare services, and

intermediary services.

An intermediary arranging accommodation is not automatically responsible for surgical technique.

However, a company that makes treatment promises, controls communication or undertakes broader services may face responsibility within the scope of those obligations.

The exact role of each legal entity should therefore be identified.

Important 2026 Development: Complication Insurance

The April 2025 International Health Tourism Regulation originally introduced a requirement for healthcare facilities to maintain complication insurance for international health-tourism surgical and interventional procedures carried out in operating-room settings.

However, this rule changed significantly through litigation.

The Turkish Medical Association reported that the Council of State’s 10th Chamber stayed execution of the compulsory complication-insurance provision in a decision dated 25 December 2025, which was publicly reported in March 2026.

A further June 2026 professional-body announcement also reported a stay of execution relating to the compulsory insurance rule and parts of the Regulation concerning complication responsibility. The underlying litigation was continuing.

Accordingly, as of September 2026, foreign breast surgery patients should not assume that the original 2025 compulsory complication-insurance rule remains straightforwardly enforceable.

Its current status should be checked in the specific case.

Importantly, this regulatory litigation does not remove ordinary contractual, consumer, malpractice or informed-consent liability.

What If the Implant Itself Is Defective?

This is an important but often overlooked issue.

Suppose the surgeon correctly implanted the device.

Later evidence shows that the implant itself was defective.

The legal claim may no longer concern only medical malpractice.

Turkey’s Product Safety and Technical Regulations Law No. 7223 establishes product-safety and product-liability principles and separately identifies responsibilities for manufacturers, importers and other economic operators.

Accordingly, where a defective implant is suspected, counsel should preserve and investigate:

• manufacturer;
• product identification;
• implant records;
• explanted device where appropriate;
• revision surgeon findings.

Do not dispose of potentially relevant product evidence without obtaining advice.

Revision Breast Surgery

The need for revision can support a claim, but revision surgery is not automatic proof of malpractice.

The relevant question is:

Why was revision required?

Possible reasons include:

• implant malposition;
• persistent asymmetry;
• infection;
• scar problems;
• correction of a defective aesthetic result.

The revision surgeon’s operative findings can be particularly important.

A report stating:

“Implant removed and replaced”

is less informative than a report explaining:

why revision was medically necessary.

Do You Have to Return to the Same Surgeon?

Not necessarily in every case.

A clinic may offer free revision.

The patient should consider:

• medical urgency;
• reason the first surgery failed;
• confidence in the provider;
• risks of further surgery;
• independent specialist advice.

Turkish consumer law provides remedies for defective services including re-performance, correction, price reduction and withdrawal, depending on the circumstances. It also preserves the possibility of damages claims under general law.

This does not mean every patient can automatically demand a full refund.

The appropriate remedy depends on the defect and legal basis.

Consumer Rights in Private Cosmetic Surgery

Private aesthetic healthcare purchased for personal purposes can fall within Turkey’s consumer-protection framework.

Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 defines defective services to include services that do not conform to agreed characteristics or objective expectations and those inconsistent with representations made through advertising or online communications.

Article 15 provides possible remedies including:

• re-performance;
• free correction;
• proportionate price reduction;
• withdrawal.

Damages under the Turkish Code of Obligations may also be sought where the conditions exist.

This can be particularly relevant where the dispute concerns:

• materially different aesthetic result;
• incomplete surgery;
• failure to provide promised treatment.

Can a Foreign Patient Request a Full Refund?

Potentially, but not automatically.

A full refund may be more appropriate where the defect is sufficiently serious and the legal requirements for withdrawal are satisfied.

Other cases may justify:

• partial price reduction;
• correction;
• revision expenses;
• damages.

The result-oriented works-contract rules and consumer-law remedies need to be analysed together.

Corrective Treatment Abroad

Foreign patients frequently undergo revision treatment after returning home.

For example:

• implant removal in the UK;
• revision augmentation in Germany;
• reconstruction in France;
• scar correction in the Netherlands.

These expenses can potentially become part of a Turkish damages claim where they are:

• medically necessary;
• reasonable;
• causally connected to the original defective treatment.

Preserve:

• independent specialist report;
• treatment plan;
• invoice;
• proof of payment;
• operative report.

Material Damages

Depending on the injury, compensable financial loss may include:

• revision surgery;
• implant removal or replacement;
• treatment of infection;
• medication;
• rehabilitation;
• lost earnings;
• future medical expenses.

Claims must be supported by documentary and medical evidence.

Moral Damages

Failed breast surgery can produce severe personal consequences.

Permanent deformity, major scarring, chronic pain or loss of sensation may affect:

• bodily integrity;
• self-confidence;
• intimate and social life;
• psychological well-being.

The Court of Cassation’s November 2025 breast aesthetic judgment specifically required the lower court to consider an appropriate non-material damages award after concluding that the result-oriented aesthetic obligation had not been fulfilled.

The amount is determined according to the individual facts.

There is no fixed “breast surgery malpractice tariff.”

Lost Income

More serious complications can prevent a patient from working.

For example:

A patient suffers severe infection requiring prolonged hospitalisation.

Or multiple revision procedures produce months of incapacity.

Foreign patients should preserve:

• payslips;
• employer confirmation;
• tax records;
• medical certificates.

Foreign income can be relevant to the damage calculation when properly proven.

Evidence Is Particularly Important in Breast Surgery Claims

A foreign patient should obtain and preserve:

1. treatment contract;
2. quotation;
3. payment records;
4. implant details;
5. preoperative photographs;
6. medical history;
7. operative report;
8. anaesthesia records;
9. consent documents;
10. hospital records;
11. postoperative photographs;
12. WhatsApp and email communications;
13. foreign specialist reports;
14. revision surgery records;
15. invoices for corrective treatment.

The strongest case usually combines medical evidence, photographic evidence and contractual evidence.

Before-and-After Photographs

Photographs are especially important in aesthetic breast litigation.

They can demonstrate:

• pre-existing asymmetry;
• postoperative deformity;
• implant position;
• scarring;
• tissue damage.

Preserve original image files where possible.

Photographs taken from consistent angles are generally more useful than heavily edited social-media images.

WhatsApp Evidence

Medical tourism providers frequently sell breast surgery packages through WhatsApp.

Relevant messages might include:

“These implants will produce the exact look you requested.”

“Your breasts will be symmetrical.”

“The surgeon will personally perform the procedure.”

Postoperative communications may also be important:

Patient: “My breast is red and extremely painful.”

Clinic: “This is normal, just wait.”

If serious infection is later diagnosed, the chronology of those messages may become highly relevant.

An Independent Plastic Surgeon’s Report

An independent specialist assessment can help distinguish:

• normal healing;
• recognised complication;
• defective aesthetic outcome;
• technical surgical problem;
• need for revision.

For breast implant cases, the specialist should ideally address:

• implant position;
• breast symmetry;
• scars;
• tissue condition;
• medical need for revision;
• probable cause of the problem.

A report saying only:

“The patient is dissatisfied”

is unlikely to be sufficient.

Proper Expert Specialisation Matters

The Court of Cassation’s recent aesthetic jurisprudence demonstrates the importance of specialist evidence.

The 2026 breast surgery decision relied on opinions from two plastic surgery specialists and a forensic medicine specialist, together with university expert assessment, in concluding that the adverse result was caused by patient-specific tissue characteristics rather than physician fault.

This is an important lesson.

A breast aesthetic case should be assessed by experts capable of evaluating plastic and reconstructive surgery, rather than by an unrelated medical specialty alone.

What If the First Expert Report Says There Was No Malpractice?

The report should be examined carefully.

Ask:

• Did the experts have plastic surgery expertise?
• Did they examine the promised aesthetic result?
• Did they consider informed consent?
• Did they review photographs?
• Did they examine revision findings?
• Did they distinguish technical fault from contractual result?

The November 2025 breast decision demonstrates why a finding of “no medical technical error” does not always fully resolve a result-oriented aesthetic claim.

How Long Should a Patient Wait Before Deciding the Result Failed?

Breast surgery requires healing time.

Swelling, scars and tissue position can evolve over months.

A patient should therefore obtain appropriate medical advice before assuming that every early postoperative difference is permanent.

However, medical healing periods and legal deadlines are separate.

The patient can:

• preserve evidence;
• request records;
• obtain legal advice;
• calculate limitation periods

while waiting for the final medical result to stabilise.

Do not postpone legal review solely because the clinic says:

“Wait another year.”

Can You Sue After Returning Home?

Potentially, yes.

A foreign patient does not ordinarily lose Turkish legal rights by returning home after surgery.

An appropriately authorised Turkish lawyer can potentially:

• obtain medical records;
• identify defendants;
• conduct mediation;
• file proceedings;
• submit foreign medical reports;
• challenge expert evidence.

The patient may therefore continue receiving treatment abroad while the Turkish claim is prepared.

Practical Example 1: Severe Implant Malposition

A British patient undergoes breast augmentation in Istanbul.

After healing, one implant sits significantly lower than the other.

A UK plastic surgeon concludes that revision is necessary because of implant-pocket problems.

Potential legal issues include:

• technical surgical performance;
• promised symmetry;
• need for corrective surgery.

The UK specialist report and revision operative findings can become important evidence.

Practical Example 2: Infection After Returning Home

A German patient reports increasing pain and redness by WhatsApp.

The clinic repeatedly advises waiting.

The patient later attends a German hospital where severe infection is diagnosed and the implant must be removed.

The initial infection might have been a recognised complication.

The Turkish legal claim may focus on:

whether delayed advice and complication management caused additional damage.

Practical Example 3: Severe Scarring but No Technical Error

A patient undergoes breast reduction and lift.

Significant permanent scars remain.

Experts say the scars are associated with the patient’s biological characteristics rather than negligent surgical technique.

This does not automatically end the claim.

The November 2025 Court of Cassation decision demonstrates that in a result-oriented aesthetic contract, the court may still need to determine whether the promised aesthetic result was achieved and whether defective contractual performance exists.

Practical Example 4: Patient-Specific Tissue Result

A patient complains of postoperative breast contour depressions.

Specialist experts determine that the outcome results from unpredictable loose skin and limited fatty tissue and is not attributable to the physician.

This closely reflects the May 2026 Court of Cassation case, where dismissal was upheld despite the result-oriented character of the aesthetic contract.

This illustrates why the outcome of breast surgery litigation depends heavily on specialist evidence.

Practical Example 5: Defective Implant

A patient undergoes technically appropriate augmentation.

Revision surgery later identifies a problem with the implant itself.

The investigation may need to consider not only medical malpractice but also product safety and potential responsibility of economic operators under Turkey’s product-safety framework.

The implant records should therefore be preserved.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a failed breast implant surgery medical malpractice in Turkey?

Potentially. The legal analysis depends on the surgical technique, promised aesthetic result, complication management, informed consent and causation.

Does a bad aesthetic result automatically mean the surgeon is liable?

No. The May 2026 Court of Cassation decision confirms that patient-specific tissue characteristics can defeat liability where the result was unpredictable and not attributable to the physician.

Is aesthetic breast surgery a contract for work?

Turkish Court of Cassation jurisprudence treats result-oriented aesthetic procedures as contracts for work in appropriate cases. The November 2025 breast surgery decision expressly applied this principle.

Can I claim if my breasts are still severely asymmetrical?

Potentially, particularly where the agreed objective included correction or creation of symmetry and the remaining result is objectively defective.

Is capsular contracture automatically malpractice?

No. It can be a recognised complication. The cause, informed-consent process and management need to be examined.

Is implant displacement malpractice?

Potentially, where expert evidence establishes negligent implant placement or another provider-attributable defect.

Is implant rupture the surgeon’s responsibility?

Not necessarily. Surgical handling, later events or a defective product can require separate investigation.

Can the implant manufacturer be responsible?

Potentially where the implant itself is defective. Turkish Law No. 7223 includes general product-safety and product-liability principles applying to relevant economic operators.

Can infection after breast surgery be malpractice?

Infection alone does not prove negligence. Delayed diagnosis or inadequate treatment may nevertheless create liability.

Can necrosis be malpractice?

Potentially, depending on the cause, risk assessment, technique and speed of treatment.

Can scarring create a claim even if there was no surgical error?

Potentially in result-oriented aesthetic cases. The November 2025 Court of Cassation breast surgery decision confirms that technical fault and contractual aesthetic result are separate questions.

Does signing a consent form prevent me from suing?

No. Informed consent must be specific and meaningful, and consent to recognised complications is not consent to negligent treatment.

What if my consent form was only in Turkish?

That can become relevant for a foreign patient. The Patient Rights Regulation requires information to be provided in a way the patient can understand, and Turkish Constitutional Court jurisprudence places the burden of proving informed consent for the relevant procedure on the healthcare provider.

Can I have revision surgery in my own country?

Yes. Necessary corrective treatment abroad can potentially be relevant to a Turkish damages claim if it is reasonable and causally connected.

Do I have to accept free revision from the original surgeon?

Not necessarily in every case. The appropriate medical and legal strategy depends on the defect, urgency and the patient’s confidence in the original provider.

Can I request a refund?

Potentially. Consumer and works-contract remedies may include price reduction, correction or withdrawal depending on the circumstances.

Can I claim moral damages?

Potentially, particularly where breast surgery causes bodily injury, permanent deformity, major scarring or significant suffering.

Is complication insurance currently mandatory for foreign breast surgery patients?

The 2025 Regulation originally imposed a compulsory complication-insurance rule for qualifying international health tourism procedures, but the Council of State stayed execution of that requirement during 2026 litigation. Its current status should be checked when the claim arises.

Can foreign patients sue without returning to Turkey?

Potentially, yes. Many procedural steps can be handled through appropriately authorised Turkish counsel.

Conclusion: Breast Implant Malpractice in Turkey Requires More Than Asking Whether a “Complication” Occurred

Breast implant and cosmetic breast surgery claims in Turkey occupy a particularly important position within medical malpractice law.

The reason is that aesthetic treatment can involve two overlapping types of legal obligation.

The first is the ordinary professional medical obligation.

The surgeon must:

• select appropriate treatment;
• perform surgery according to accepted medical standards;
• monitor the patient;
• recognise complications;
• manage complications appropriately.

The second is the result-oriented contractual obligation that Turkish Court of Cassation jurisprudence attaches to purely aesthetic interventions.

This distinction is central to understanding current Turkish law.

The Court of Cassation’s 17 November 2025 breast surgery decision, E. 2024/3670, K. 2025/3903, is especially significant.

In that case, expert evidence did not attribute the remaining breast scars to technical surgical negligence.

Nevertheless, the Court held that the aesthetic works contract carried a result obligation and concluded that the provider had not fully delivered the promised aesthetic benefit. It therefore required reconsideration of both material and non-material damages.

This means that a cosmetic surgeon cannot necessarily defeat every claim merely by proving:

“The operation was technically performed according to medical science.”

In a result-oriented aesthetic procedure, the court may also need to ask:

“Did the patient receive the agreed aesthetic result?”

But the Court of Cassation has equally made clear that this principle does not create absolute liability.

In its 21 May 2026 decision, E. 2025/3014, K. 2026/2257, the Court upheld dismissal where specialist experts concluded that postoperative contour irregularities resulted from the patient’s individual tissue characteristics, could not reasonably have been predicted and were not attributable to the doctor.

Accordingly:

aesthetic result obligation is not the same thing as automatic compensation.

The unsuccessful outcome must still be evaluated medically and legally.

This becomes especially important with common breast implant complaints.

Implant displacement may reflect surgical technique or patient-specific healing.

Capsular contracture can be a recognised complication but still requires informed-consent and management analysis.

Infection may arise despite appropriate surgery but become a malpractice issue if warning signs are negligently ignored.

Necrosis may require examination of surgical technique, blood supply, patient risk factors and postoperative response.

Severe scarring may arise from individual biology yet still become relevant to the contractual aesthetic-result analysis.

Implant rupture can create an entirely different issue if the problem lies in the device rather than the surgeon.

This last point should not be overlooked.

Turkey’s Product Safety and Technical Regulations Law No. 7223 establishes product-safety and product-liability principles and identifies obligations of manufacturers, importers and other economic operators.

Therefore, where implant failure appears to arise from the medical device itself, the investigation should not automatically stop with the doctor.

The implant information should be preserved.

Informed consent creates another independent source of liability.

Turkey’s Patient Rights Regulation expressly requires information about possible complications, treatment alternatives and relevant risks, and the information must be provided in a form that the patient can understand.

For international medical tourists, this requirement can be particularly important.

A foreign patient who does not understand Turkish should not automatically be treated as fully informed merely because a Turkish-language consent document contains a signature.

The Constitutional Court’s Ahmet Acartürk judgment confirms that informed participation in healthcare decisions falls within constitutional protection of bodily and moral integrity and that proving informed consent for the specific intervention is the responsibility of the doctor or hospital.

Accordingly, foreign breast surgery patients should preserve:

consent documents,

translations,

WhatsApp messages,

consultation records,

and

evidence of any interpreter used.

International health-tourism rules should also be considered.

The April 2025 Regulation establishes authorisation and service requirements for healthcare facilities and intermediaries serving international health tourists.

However, one important aspect of that framework changed during 2026.

The compulsory complication-insurance provision introduced in 2025 was subjected to Council of State stay-of-execution decisions. Professional organisations reported that the requirement and connected regulatory provisions were suspended while the underlying litigation continued.

For this reason, a foreign patient should not simply be told:

“There must be complication insurance because the Regulation says so.”

The current legal status should be checked at the time of the actual claim.

Most importantly, the complication-insurance dispute does not eliminate ordinary medical malpractice, consumer, contract or informed-consent remedies.

Foreign patients considering a breast implant malpractice claim should therefore collect evidence early.

Request:

the complete medical file,

operative report,

implant details,

anaesthesia documents,

consent forms,

before-and-after photographs,

and

postoperative follow-up records.

Preserve every communication with the clinic.

If revision surgery is performed abroad, obtain a detailed operative report explaining why the implant was removed or replaced and what the revision surgeon found.

This evidence can help distinguish among:

a recognised complication,

medical malpractice,

defective aesthetic performance,

and

a defective medical device.

Those are legally different situations.

A strong breast implant malpractice case should therefore not begin with the question:

“Did my surgery go badly?”

It should begin with:

What was promised?

What was medically done?

What caused the current problem?

Was the risk properly explained?

Was the complication correctly managed?

Is the result attributable to the surgeon, hospital, implant or patient-specific biology?

Only after those questions are answered can the appropriate legal claim and defendants be identified.

If you have suffered severe asymmetry, implant displacement, infection, tissue necrosis, significant scarring, implant rupture, persistent pain or the need for revision surgery after breast augmentation, breast lift or breast reduction in Turkey, the explanation that the outcome is simply a “complication” should not automatically end the legal inquiry. Turkish law requires a detailed assessment of medical technique, informed consent, complication management, the agreed aesthetic result and, where relevant, the implant itself.

Legal Disclaimer

This article provides general information concerning breast implant and cosmetic breast surgery malpractice claims under Turkish law as of September 2026. It does not constitute individual legal advice.

Whether a breast surgery result constitutes medical malpractice or defective aesthetic performance depends on the specific procedure, patient’s anatomy, implant, medical technique, informed-consent process, complication management, contractual expectations, hospital organisation and expert evidence.

Implant-related claims may additionally involve product-safety and product-liability issues.

The regulatory position concerning compulsory complication insurance in international health tourism changed during 2026 following Council of State stay-of-execution decisions and should be checked according to the circumstances and date of each case.

Each breast implant malpractice claim should therefore be individually evaluated using the complete medical file, implant documentation and appropriate specialist plastic surgery evidence.