Hair Transplant Gone Wrong in Türkiye: Your Legal Rights

What Counts as a Failed Hair Transplant

If a hair transplant carried out in Türkiye did not produce the appearance that was agreed, the legal question is not whether the outcome looks bad. It is whether the practitioner delivered the result that was undertaken. Turkish law treats an aesthetic hair transplant as a works contract, so the practitioner owes a result and not merely careful effort, and a result that was not delivered is a defect in the work.

That is why the familiar list of things that go wrong, grafts that never grew in, a hairline placed badly, visible scarring across the donor area, or a scalp left disfigured, matters legally. Each of them is evidence that the work is defective. The 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has put the standard plainly:

“Yüklenici, hangi yöntemi kullanırsa kullansın eserin ayıpsız olarak ortaya çıkması gerekmekte olup, diğer bir deyişle eser sözleşmesinin niteliği gereği yüklenici sonucu garanti etmektedir.”

(Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2022/2949, K. 2023/3283, T. 12.10.2023 — quashed, unanimous)

Unofficial translation: “Whatever method the contractor uses, the work must emerge free of defect; in other words, by the very nature of the works contract the contractor guarantees the result.”

Two practical consequences follow immediately. The technique used is the clinic’s problem, not yours, so an argument that the method chosen was a recognised one does not answer the claim. And because it is the result that the contractor guarantees rather than the effort, the assessment is made once the outcome has settled, which in a transplant takes many months rather than weeks.

Who May Lawfully Perform a Hair Transplant in Türkiye

This is the question most patients never think to ask before travelling, and it is often the strongest point in the file afterwards. Hair transplantation in Türkiye is regulated by a dedicated instrument, the Regulation on Hair Transplant Units, and it restricts both where the procedure may be done and who may do it.

On the place:

“MADDE 5- (1) Saç ekimi birimi, sağlık kuruluşları bünyesinde bu Yönetmelik kapsamında faaliyet izin belgesi alınarak açılabilir.”

(Saç Ekimi Birimleri Hakkında Yönetmelik m.5)

Unofficial translation: “ARTICLE 5- (1) A hair transplant unit may be opened within a health institution by obtaining an operating permit under this Regulation.”

On the personnel:

“MADDE 9- (1) Saç ekimi birimlerinde yalnızca Bakanlıkça sertifikası tescil edilmiş sertifikalı personel çalışabilir.”

(Saç Ekimi Birimleri Hakkında Yönetmelik m.9)

Unofficial translation: “ARTICLE 9- (1) Only certified personnel whose certificates have been registered by the Ministry may work in hair transplant units.”

The provision then divides the procedure itself into stages and reserves the critical ones to doctors:

“Saç ekimi uygulamasında, saç foliküllerinin toplanması ve kanal açılması aşamaları sadece saç ekimi uygulayıcı sertifikası bulunan tabipler/uzman tabipler, plastik, rekonstrüktif ve estetik cerrahi, deri ve zührevi hastalıkları uzmanı tabipler ile medikal estetik sertifikasına sahip tabipler/uzman tabipler tarafından yapılır. Saç foliküllerinin kanallara yerleştirilmesi aşaması ise ilgili tabipler veya saç ekimi yardımcı uygulayıcı sertifikasına sahip sağlık meslek mensuplarınca yapılabilir.”

(Saç Ekimi Birimleri Hakkında Yönetmelik m.9)

Unofficial translation: “In a hair transplant application, the stages of harvesting the hair follicles and opening the channels are carried out only by doctors or specialist doctors holding a hair transplant applicator certificate, by specialists in plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgery or in dermatology and venereal diseases, and by doctors or specialist doctors holding a medical aesthetics certificate. The stage of placing the hair follicles into the channels may be carried out by those doctors or by health professionals holding a hair transplant assistant applicator certificate.”

Read that against what many patients actually experienced. Harvesting the follicles and opening the channels may not lawfully be delegated to a technician. Only the placement stage may be, and even then only to certified assistant personnel working under a doctor’s supervision. Where a package was sold cheaply and a patient recalls a doctor appearing briefly at the start and then leaving a team to work unsupervised, the file may contain a regulatory breach that sits independently of any argument about surgical judgement.

Anaesthesia is addressed separately:

“Sedoanaljezi veya genel anestezi altında uygulama yapılması hâlinde uygulama sırasında anestezi ve reanimasyon uzmanı bulundurulması zorunludur.”

(Saç Ekimi Birimleri Hakkında Yönetmelik m.9)

Unofficial translation: “Where the procedure is performed under sedoanalgesia or general anaesthesia, the presence of an anaesthesia and reanimation specialist during the procedure is compulsory.”

Establishing who actually held the punch, who opened the channels and who was present during sedation is therefore a factual enquiry worth making early, while memories and messages are fresh.

Was the Clinic Authorised to Treat International Patients?

Being lawfully entitled to carry out hair transplants is one question. Being lawfully entitled to treat a patient who travelled to Türkiye for the procedure is a second and separate one, and it is answered by a different instrument.

“MADDE 5- (1) Sağlık tesisi ve aracı kuruluşların uluslararası sağlık turizmi hizmetlerinde faaliyet yürütebilmesi için yetki belgesi alması zorunludur. Yetki belgesi; sağlık tesisi için Bakanlık, aracı kuruluş için USHAŞ tarafından düzenlenir.”

(Uluslararası Sağlık Turizmi ve Turistin Sağlığı Hakkında Yönetmelik m.5)

Unofficial translation: it is compulsory for health facilities and intermediaries to obtain an authorisation certificate in order to carry on activity in international health tourism services. The certificate is issued by the Ministry for a health facility and by USHAŞ for an intermediary.

The certificate is required of the agency as well as the clinic, it cannot be transferred, and a branch that has not been separately authorised may not carry on health tourism activity. The regulation also bars a facility from taking services that fall to an intermediary from anyone who holds no certificate, so using an unlicensed agency is a breach on the clinic’s side as well.

For a procedure of this kind one requirement in the service standards matters more than the rest:

“c) Uluslararası sağlık turizmi kapsamında ameliyathane ortamında yapılacak cerrahi ve girişimsel işlemler için sağlık tesisi tarafından komplikasyon sigortası yaptırılması zorunludur.”

(Uluslararası Sağlık Turizmi ve Turistin Sağlığı Hakkında Yönetmelik m.6)

Unofficial translation: it is compulsory for the health facility to take out complication insurance for surgical and interventional procedures to be carried out in an operating theatre setting within the scope of international health tourism.

A hair transplant carried out in a theatre setting is a surgical and interventional procedure, so this requirement is capable of reaching it directly. Where such a policy exists, the claim need not be routed through the clinic at all, because Article 1478 of the Turkish Commercial Code permits a direct claim against the insurer. That provision is set out in the section on who can be sued below.

The same regulation answers the clinic’s most common reply in advance:

“(3) Uluslararası sağlık turistinin ülkemizde bulunduğu süre içinde alacağı sağlık hizmeti ve aracılık hizmetlerinden sağlık tesisi ve aracı kuruluş, sunulan hizmetin türüne bağlı olarak sorumludur. Sunulan sağlık hizmeti sonrası ortaya çıkabilecek komplikasyon ve tıbbi kötü uygulamalar da bu sorumluluk kapsamındadır.”

(Uluslararası Sağlık Turizmi ve Turistin Sağlığı Hakkında Yönetmelik m.6)

Unofficial translation: the health facility and the intermediary are responsible, according to the type of service supplied, for the health services and intermediary services that the international health tourist receives while in our country. Complications and poor medical practice that may emerge after the health service has been supplied are also within the scope of this responsibility.

Complications are therefore placed inside the responsibility rather than outside it, and the agency is named alongside the clinic. The section below on complications takes that argument further under the contract analysis.

Finally, the facility must operate an international health tourism unit responsible for admission, registration, diagnosis, treatment, invoicing, discharge and interpreting, must have at least one documented foreign language speaker in it, and must assign a named member of staff to each international patient and record that person on the Ministry’s portal. The same requirements apply to failed crowns and veneers, where they are set out in more detail.

Works Contract, Not a Treatment Mandate

Turkish law separates two contract types that both involve a physician. Where treatment is a medical necessity, the relationship is a mandate and the physician owes diligence. Where the patient seeks a particular appearance, the relationship is a works contract and the practitioner undertakes to produce a result.

The definition of the works contract is in Article 470 of the Turkish Code of Obligations:

“MADDE 470- Eser sözleşmesi, yüklenicinin bir eser meydana getirmeyi, işsahibinin de bunun karşılığında bir bedel ödemeyi üstlendiği sözleşmedir.”

(6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu m.470)

Unofficial translation: “ARTICLE 470- A works contract is a contract by which the contractor undertakes to produce a work and the customer undertakes to pay a price in return.”

This matters particularly for patients who travelled to Turkey for the procedure, because the contract was concluded and performed in Türkiye and the claim is pursued under Turkish law. The same classification governs failed crowns and veneers, which is why the two situations are analysed in the same way.

What the Court of Cassation Held About Hair Transplants

The 6th Civil Chamber examined a case in which a patient underwent an aesthetic hair transplant. Reports from the Council of Forensic Medicine and from a university panel described the outcome as a complication that can arise despite all due care, and the first instance court dismissed the claim. The Chamber identified the purpose of the contract:

“Burada sözleşme yapılmasının nedeni belli bir sonucun ortaya çıkmasıdır.”

(Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2022/4360, K. 2024/322, T. 23.01.2024 — quashed)

Unofficial translation: “Here the reason for concluding the contract is the emergence of a particular result.”

It then held that a finding of medical propriety does not dispose of the case, and set out what the lower court had to examine instead:

“hekimin eyleminin tıp kurallarına uygun olduğu yönündeki görüş yeterli olmayıp, ayrıca davacının isteklerinin karşılanıp karşılanmadığı, ayıplı olduğu iddia edilen saç ekimi işlemi ve sonrasında gerçekleştirilen sorunlu bölgenin derisinin müdahale ile alınması işlemi ile ilgili olarak; hekimin edimini yerine getirip getirmediği ya da komplikasyon olup olmadığı, komplikasyon konusunda aydınlatma görevinin yerine getirilip getirilmediği ve komplikasyon yönetiminin doğru yapılıp yapılmadığı hususları tartışılıp değerlendirilmek üzere, aralarında üniversitelerden seçilecek akademik kariyere sahip Estetik Plastik ve Rekonstrüktif cerrahisi konusunda uzman 3 kişilik bilirkişi kurulu oluşturulmak suretiyle gerektiğinde davacı da muayene edilerek, dosyadaki belge ve bilgiler incelenerek alınacak rapora yapılacak itirazlar da dikkate alınıp hekim ve istihdam eden sıfatıyla davalı poliklinik işleticisinin sorumluluğu saptanıp, hasıl olacak sonuca uygun bir karar verilmelidir.”

(Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2022/4360, K. 2024/322, T. 23.01.2024 — quashed)

Unofficial translation: “the view that the physician’s act complied with medical rules is not sufficient; in addition, whether the claimant’s requests were met, and, in relation to the hair transplant procedure alleged to be defective and the subsequent removal of skin from the problematic area, whether the physician performed his obligation or whether a complication occurred, whether the duty to inform about the complication was discharged and whether the complication was managed correctly, must be discussed and evaluated. For that purpose a panel of three experts in aesthetic, plastic and reconstructive surgery with academic careers, selected from universities, is to be constituted, the claimant examined where necessary, the documents and information in the file reviewed, objections to the report taken into account, the liability of the physician and of the defendant polyclinic operator in its capacity as employer established, and a decision consistent with the resulting outcome rendered.”

Three points follow. Compliance with medical rules and achievement of the agreed result are separate questions. A complication defence does not close the case, because the duty to inform and the management of the complication are examined in their own right. And the operator of the clinic is before the court in its capacity as employer, alongside the practitioner.

The Chamber stated the position on complications directly:

“Komplikasyonlarda ise aydınlatma yükümlülüğü ve komplikasyon yönetiminin doğru yapılması yine yüklenicinin (hekimin) sorumluluğundadır.”

(Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2022/4360, K. 2024/322, T. 23.01.2024 — quashed)

Unofficial translation: “In the case of complications, the duty to inform and the correct management of the complication are likewise the responsibility of the contractor (the physician).”

When the Clinic Says It Was a Complication

This is the answer almost every patient receives, usually accompanied by a reminder of the consent form. It is worth knowing how the courts treat it.

In the aesthetic surgery case quoted earlier the Chamber addressed the point in a single sentence:

“Bu konuda komplikasyon olup olmaması tek başına sonuca etkili değildir.”

(Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2022/2949, K. 2023/3283, T. 12.10.2023 — quashed, unanimous)

Unofficial translation: “In this respect, whether or not a complication occurred is not by itself decisive.”

The General Assembly of Civil Chambers went further on facts of the same shape. Expert reports had concluded that the complication following aesthetic surgery did not stem from any fault of the hospital or the doctor and had developed naturally. The Assembly nonetheless found fault attributable to the defendants:

“ancak davalıların eser sözleşmesi kapsamında edimlerini tam ve eksiksiz ifa etmeyerek ayıplı eser oluşturdukları gibi yapılan estetik müdahale ile amaçlanan sonuç taahhüdünü de gereği gibi gerçekleştiremedikleri, davacının yatarak tedavi gördüğü, sonrasında gelişen enfeksiyon nedeniyle ikinci bir operasyon geçirmek zorunda kaldığı, bu durumun davacı tarafta manevi ve ruhsal olarak çöküntüye sebebiyet verdiği, operasyon sonrası yaşadığı ağrı ve acılarından dolayı ruhî elem ve üzüntüsü hâlen devam eden davacının vücut bütünlüğünde ortaya çıkan komplikasyon ve görüntü bozukluğuna sebebiyet verilmesinin davalılara izafe edilebilecek kusurlu bir davranış olduğu anlaşılmaktadır.”

(Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, E. 2020/284, K. 2022/1423, T. 02.11.2022 — quashed, by majority)

Unofficial translation: “however, it is understood that the defendants, by failing to perform their obligations fully and completely under the works contract, produced a defective work and also failed to deliver as required the result undertaken by the aesthetic intervention; that the claimant received inpatient treatment and had to undergo a second operation because of the infection that subsequently developed; that this caused the claimant emotional and psychological collapse; and that causing the complication and the disfigurement in the bodily integrity of the claimant, whose mental distress and grief from the pain suffered after the operation still continues, constitutes culpable conduct attributable to the defendants.”

Two honest qualifications belong with that passage. The decision was taken by majority rather than unanimously, and it was decided under the former Code of Obligations, because the events predated the entry into force of the current Code. The classification now rests on Article 470 rather than on its predecessor provision. What makes the passage worth reading anyway is that the line it draws has been applied since, under the current Code, by the 6th Civil Chamber decisions quoted above.

Who Has to Prove What

Patients usually assume they must prove that the surgeon did something wrong. Under the works contract regime that is not the test. The Chamber has stated the position on fault directly:

“yine eser sözleşmelerinde yüklenicinin ayıptan TBK’nın 475. maddesine göre sorumlu olması için kusurlu bulunması gerekmediği”

(Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2022/2949, K. 2023/3283, T. 12.10.2023 — quashed, unanimous)

Unofficial translation: “likewise, that in works contracts it is not necessary for the contractor to be found at fault in order to be liable for the defect under Article 475 of the Turkish Code of Obligations”

In a decision of October 2025 concerning a septorhinoplasty, the Chamber described where the evidential burden sat once the promised result had not materialised:

“Davalılar illiyet bağını kesen geçerli bir savunmada bulunmadıkları gibi, davacının kusurunu da kanıtlayamamışlardır.”

(Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2024/2312, K. 2025/3241, T. 02.10.2025 — quashed, unanimous)

Unofficial translation: “The defendants neither raised a valid defence severing the causal link, nor were they able to prove fault on the part of the claimant.”

The practical reading is that establishing the agreement and the shortfall in the result carries the claimant a long way, and it is then for the clinic to produce something that severs the causal link.

There is a limit on the other side. Where the defect stems from the customer’s own instruction given despite a clear warning from the contractor, the customer loses the rights arising from the defect:

“MADDE 476- Eserin ayıplı olması, yüklenicinin açıkça yaptığı ihtara karşın, işsahibinin verdiği talimattan doğmuş bulunur veya herhangi bir sebeple işsahibine yüklenebilecek olursa işsahibi, eserin ayıplı olmasından doğan haklarını kullanamaz.”

(6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu m.476)

Unofficial translation: “ARTICLE 476- Where the defect in the work has arisen from an instruction given by the customer despite an express warning by the contractor, or is for any reason attributable to the customer, the customer may not exercise the rights arising from the defect in the work.”

This is the provision clinics reach for when a patient insisted on a particular hairline or a very high graft count. It bites only where the contractor gave an express warning, which is one more reason why what was said before the procedure, and whether it was recorded anywhere, matters.

Informed Consent and the Consent Form

Consent and result are different things. Consenting to a disclosed risk is not the same as accepting that the work need not be delivered, which is why a signed form does not dispose of a defect claim on its own.

The absence of a form, however, tells against the practitioner. In a dental implant case the 6th Civil Chamber concluded that the contractor was at fault, taking into account both that the result undertaken had not been achieved and that no consent form had been submitted to the file. That decision, Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2024/1729, K. 2025/1327, T. 27.03.2025, is quoted in full in the companion article on Turkey teeth gone wrong, where the same reasoning is set out in a dental setting.

Because the duty to inform is examined separately from the outcome, it is worth reconstructing what was actually explained: whether the risk that grafts might not survive was mentioned, whether the number of sessions likely to be required was discussed, and whether anything was said about who would carry out each stage.

What You Can Claim

The remedies for a defective work are set out as a set of alternatives:

“MADDE 475- Eserdeki ayıp sebebiyle yüklenicinin sorumlu olduğu hâllerde işsahibi, aşağıdaki seçimlik haklardan birini kullanabilir: 1. Eser işsahibinin kullanamayacağı veya hakkaniyet gereği kabule zorlanamayacağı ölçüde ayıplı ya da sözleşme hükümlerine aynı ölçüde aykırı olursa sözleşmeden dönme. 2. Eseri alıkoyup ayıp oranında bedelden indirim isteme. 3. Aşırı bir masrafı gerektirmediği takdirde, bütün masrafları yükleniciye ait olmak üzere, eserin ücretsiz onarılmasını isteme. İşsahibinin genel hükümlere göre tazminat isteme hakkı saklıdır.”

(6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu m.475)

Unofficial translation: “ARTICLE 475- Where the contractor is liable on account of a defect in the work, the customer may exercise one of the following selective rights: 1. Rescission of the contract, where the work is defective, or contrary to the terms of the contract, to such an extent that the customer cannot use it or cannot in fairness be compelled to accept it. 2. Keeping the work and requesting a reduction of the price in proportion to the defect. 3. Requesting free repair of the work at the contractor’s entire expense, provided this does not require excessive cost. The customer’s right to claim damages under the general provisions is reserved.”

The final sentence is the one that carries most of the value in transplant cases. The selective rights address the price paid; the reserved right to damages addresses the loss beyond it, which is where the cost of corrective work belongs.

Non-pecuniary damages are claimed separately:

“MADDE 56- Hâkim, bir kimsenin bedensel bütünlüğünün zedelenmesi durumunda, olayın özelliklerini göz önünde tutarak, zarar görene uygun bir miktar paranın manevi tazminat olarak ödenmesine karar verebilir.”

(6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu m.56)

Unofficial translation: “ARTICLE 56- Where a person’s bodily integrity has been harmed, the judge may, taking into account the particular features of the event, order payment of an appropriate sum of money to the injured party as non-pecuniary damages.”

Both of the decisions discussed above that dealt with disfigurement treated non-pecuniary damages as properly in issue rather than as an afterthought. The amount is at the court’s discretion and is assessed against the circumstances of the case and the parties’ positions, so no figure can be predicted from the outside.

Which Court Hears the Claim

For a procedure at a private clinic the dispute is normally a consumer dispute. The bridge is in the definitions article of the Consumer Protection Law, which names works contracts expressly:

“l) Tüketici işlemi: Mal veya hizmet piyasalarında kamu tüzel kişileri de dâhil olmak üzere ticari veya mesleki amaçlarla hareket eden veya onun adına ya da hesabına hareket eden gerçek veya tüzel kişiler ile tüketiciler arasında kurulan, eser, taşıma, simsarlık, sigorta, vekâlet, bankacılık ve benzeri sözleşmeler de dâhil olmak üzere her türlü sözleşme ve hukuki işlemi,”

(6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.3)

Unofficial translation: “l) Consumer transaction: any contract and legal transaction concluded between consumers and natural or legal persons acting for commercial or professional purposes, including public legal entities, or acting in their name or on their account, including works, carriage, brokerage, insurance, mandate, banking and similar contracts,”

Because a works contract is listed, jurisdiction follows from Article 73:

“MADDE 73- (1) Tüketici işlemleri ile tüketiciye yönelik uygulamalardan doğabilecek uyuşmazlıklara ilişkin davalarda tüketici mahkemeleri görevlidir.”

(6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.73)

Unofficial translation: “ARTICLE 73- (1) Consumer courts have jurisdiction over actions concerning disputes that may arise from consumer transactions and from practices directed at consumers.”

Before You Sue: Arbitration Committee or Mediation

There is a step before the courtroom, and which step it is depends on the amount at stake.

Below a monetary threshold the dispute goes to a consumer arbitration committee rather than to court. That threshold is revalued annually, so the figure applicable on the date of application must be checked rather than taken from an older article.

Above it, applying to a mediator is a condition of bringing the action:

“(1) Tüketici mahkemelerinde görülen uyuşmazlıklarda dava açılmadan önce arabulucuya başvurulmuş olması dava şartıdır. Şu kadar ki, aşağıda belirtilen hususlarda dava şartı olarak arabuluculuğa ilişkin hükümler uygulanmaz:”

(6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.73/A)

Unofficial translation: “(1) In disputes heard before the consumer courts, having applied to a mediator before bringing the action is a condition of the action. However, the provisions on mediation as a condition of action do not apply in the matters set out below:”

The first of those exceptions is the one that matters here:

“a) Tüketici hakem heyetinin görevi kapsamında olan uyuşmazlıklar”

(6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.73/A)

Unofficial translation: “a) Disputes falling within the remit of the consumer arbitration committee”

So the two routes do not stack. A claim within the committee’s remit goes to the committee and is not subject to the mediation condition; a claim above it goes to mediation first and then to the consumer court. Getting this wrong costs time, because an action filed without the mandatory mediation step is rejected on that ground alone.

Time Limits

The works contract regime carries its own limitation rule, and it is short:

“MADDE 478- Yüklenici ayıplı bir eser meydana getirmişse, bu sebeple açılacak davalar, teslim tarihinden başlayarak, taşınmaz yapılar dışındaki eserlerde iki yılın; taşınmaz yapılarda ise beş yılın ve yüklenicinin ağır kusuru varsa, ayıplı eserin niteliğine bakılmaksızın yirmi yılın geçmesiyle zamanaşımına uğrar.”

(6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu m.478)

Unofficial translation: “ARTICLE 478- Where the contractor has produced a defective work, actions brought on that ground become time barred on the expiry of two years from the date of delivery for works other than immovable structures; five years for immovable structures; and twenty years, irrespective of the nature of the defective work, where the contractor is grossly at fault.”

A hair transplant is not an immovable structure, so the two-year period is the one in view, extended to twenty years where gross fault is established. Whether a longer general period can apply instead depends on whether the claim is framed on defect liability or on general provisions, and that question is contested rather than settled.

This is where hair transplant claims are most often lost. Clinics routinely advise patients to wait twelve to eighteen months for the final result, and that advice is medically ordinary. The difficulty is that the two-year clock runs from delivery, not from the moment a patient accepts that the result will not improve. A patient who waits for the appearance to settle, then tries a revision, then complains, can reach a lawyer with very little of the period left. The same two-year rule governs failed crowns and veneers, where delivery is easier to date and the period therefore starts running sooner.

Who Can Be Sued

The practitioner is not necessarily the only defendant. As the passage quoted above shows, the clinic operator is examined in its capacity as employer. Where the procedure was arranged as a package, the agency or intermediary that sold it may also be in the picture depending on what it undertook.

Where the practitioner carries compulsory professional liability insurance, the Turkish Commercial Code allows a direct claim:

“MADDE 1478 - (1) Zarar gören, uğradığı zararın sigorta bedeline kadar olan kısmının tazminini, sigorta sözleşmesi için geçerli zamanaşımı süresi içinde kalmak şartıyla, doğrudan sigortacıdan isteyebilir.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.1478)

Unofficial translation: “ARTICLE 1478 - (1) The injured party may claim compensation for the portion of its loss up to the sum insured directly from the insurer, provided this remains within the limitation period applicable to the insurance contract.”

Note the direction of the claim. The insurer is a defendant in such an action, not a claimant.

If the Procedure Was at a State or University Hospital

The route above assumes a private clinic. Where the procedure was performed within a public hospital or a state university, the claim is not a consumer action against the physician personally. The Constitution directs it elsewhere:

“Memurlar ve diğer kamu görevlilerinin yetkilerini kullanırken işledikleri kusurlardan doğan tazminat davaları, kendilerine rücu edilmek kaydıyla ve kanunun gösterdiği şekil ve şartlara uygun olarak, ancak idare aleyhine açılabilir.”

(2709 sayılı Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası m.129)

Unofficial translation: “Actions for damages arising from faults committed by civil servants and other public officials in the exercise of their powers may be brought only against the administration, in accordance with the forms and conditions prescribed by law and subject to recourse against them.”

The claim is therefore a full remedy action before the administrative courts, and it has its own precondition:

“1. İdari eylemlerden hakları ihlal edilmiş olanların idari dava açmadan önce, bu eylemleri yazılı bildirim üzerine veya başka süretle öğrendikleri tarihten itibaren bir yıl ve her halde eylem tarihinden itibaren beş yıl içinde ilgili idareye başvurarak haklarının yerine getirilmesini istemeleri gereklidir. Bu isteklerin kısmen veya tamamen reddi halinde, bu konudaki işlemin tebliğini izleyen günden itibaren veya istek hakkında otuz gün içinde cevap verilmediği takdirde bu sürenin bittiği tarihten itibaren, dava süresi içinde dava açılabilir.”

(2577 sayılı İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu m.13)

Unofficial translation: “1. Those whose rights have been violated by administrative acts must, before bringing an administrative action, apply to the relevant administration requesting that their rights be satisfied, within one year from the date on which they learned of those acts by written notification or otherwise, and in any event within five years from the date of the act. Where such requests are rejected in whole or in part, the action may be brought within the period for bringing actions, running from the day following notification of the decision on the matter or, where no reply is given within thirty days, from the date on which that period expires.”

The distinction between the private and public routes is set out in our Turkish language article on claims against private hospitals. In practice, hair transplants sold to foreign patients are performed at private clinics almost without exception, so the consumer route is the usual one.

Bringing the Claim From Abroad

Most patients in this position are no longer in Türkiye and have no intention of returning. That does not stand in the way of a claim, but two questions have to be answered before anything is filed: which country’s law governs the dispute, and which country’s courts can hear it.

On the governing law, the starting point is what the parties chose. Most patients chose nothing, because the paperwork was a price and a graft count rather than a contract with clauses. The fallback is the closest connection:

“(4) Tarafların hukuk seçimi yapmamış olmaları hâlinde sözleşmeden doğan ilişkiye, o sözleşmeyle en sıkı ilişkili olan hukuk uygulanır. Bu hukuk, karakteristik edim borçlusunun, sözleşmenin kuruluşu sırasındaki mutad meskeni hukuku, ticarî veya meslekî faaliyetler gereği kurulan sözleşmelerde karakteristik edim borçlusunun işyeri, bulunmadığı takdirde yerleşim yeri hukuku, karakteristik edim borçlusunun birden çok işyeri varsa söz konusu sözleşmeyle en sıkı ilişki içinde bulunan işyeri hukuku olarak kabul edilir. Ancak hâlin bütün şartlarına göre sözleşmeyle daha sıkı ilişkili bir hukukun bulunması hâlinde sözleşme, bu hukuka tâbi olur.”

(5718 sayılı Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun m.24)

Unofficial translation: where the parties have made no choice of law, the law most closely connected with the contract applies to the contractual relationship. That law is taken to be the law of the habitual residence of the party owing the characteristic performance at the time the contract was made, or, for contracts made in the course of commercial or professional activity, the law of that party’s place of business, failing which the law of that party’s domicile, and where that party has more than one place of business, the law of the place of business most closely connected with the contract. However, if in all the circumstances there is a law more closely connected with the contract, the contract is subject to that law.

The characteristic performance here is the procedure, not the payment. For a clinic operating in Türkiye that points to Turkish law, which is why the provisions discussed throughout this article are the ones that decide the case.

The consumer protection rule does not carry your home law with you. Turkish private international law protects consumers by preserving the minimum protection of their own habitual residence, but that rule carries an express exclusion:

“(4) Bu madde, paket turlar hariç, taşıma sözleşmeleri ve tüketiciye hizmetin onun mutad meskeninin bulunduğu ülkeden başka bir ülkede sağlanması zorunlu olan sözleşmelere uygulanmaz.”

(5718 sayılı Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun m.26)

Unofficial translation: this article does not apply, save for package tours, to contracts of carriage and to contracts under which the service must be supplied to the consumer in a country other than the country of the consumer’s habitual residence.

A hair transplant in Türkiye for a patient living abroad is supplied in Türkiye by necessity. On the ordinary reading of that exclusion the protective rule does not reach it, and because the special jurisdiction rule for consumer contracts is tied by its own wording to the contracts defined in that article, that rule does not reach it either. This is a question of interpretation rather than a settled holding, and it is one a clinic will contest, but it should not be assumed the other way.

What governs the reach of the Turkish courts is the general rule:

“MADDE 40 – (1) Türk mahkemelerinin milletlerarası yetkisini, iç hukukun yer itibariyle yetki kuralları tayin eder.”

(5718 sayılı Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun m.40)

Unofficial translation: the international jurisdiction of the Turkish courts is determined by the rules of domestic law on venue.

So whether a Turkish court can hear the claim is answered by the ordinary Turkish venue rules, which for a consumer dispute point to the consumer court discussed above. One clause is worth looking for before relying on any of this:

“MADDE 47 – (1) Yer itibariyle yetkinin münhasır yetki esasına göre tayin edilmediği hâllerde, taraflar, aralarındaki yabancılık unsuru taşıyan ve borç ilişkilerinden doğan uyuşmazlığın yabancı bir devletin mahkemesinde görülmesi konusunda anlaşabilirler. Anlaşma, yazılı delille ispat edilmesi hâlinde geçerli olur. Dava, ancak yabancı mahkemenin kendisini yetkisiz sayması veya Türk mahkemelerinde yetki itirazında bulunulmaması hâlinde yetkili Türk mahkemesinde görülür.”

(5718 sayılı Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun m.47)

Unofficial translation: where venue is not determined on the basis of exclusive jurisdiction, the parties may agree that a dispute between them containing a foreign element and arising from obligations shall be heard by the court of a foreign state. The agreement is valid if proved by written evidence. The action is heard by the competent Turkish court only if the foreign court holds itself to lack jurisdiction or if no objection to jurisdiction is raised before the Turkish courts.

If the paperwork contains a clause of that kind it changes the analysis and it should be read before anything is filed. The same conflict of laws questions arise for failed crowns and veneers.

Proceedings can be conducted through a Turkish lawyer acting under a power of attorney, which is normally issued before a notary in the country of residence, with an apostille, or at a Turkish consulate. Attendance is not required for every stage. The court may order a medical examination, and where it does, arrangements can usually be discussed rather than assumed.

Two things are worth doing before the file is opened. Collect the documents while the clinic is still responding to messages, because access tends to close once a lawyer is mentioned. And date the delivery of the work as precisely as the records allow, since the limitation period in Article 478 of the Turkish Code of Obligations runs from that point rather than from the day the patient concluded the result had failed.

Evidence to Preserve

Cases of this kind are decided on documents and expert reports, so the file matters more than recollection.

• The written agreement, and any package description or offer that specifies the technique or the number of grafts.
• The consent form, and any risk information sheet given before the procedure.
• Records showing who performed each stage, particularly the harvesting and the opening of channels, together with the name and title of everyone in the room.
• Evidence that the clinic held an operating permit for a hair transplant unit, where this can be obtained.
• Photographs before the procedure and at intervals afterwards, with dates.
• Operative records showing the technique actually applied and the graft count.
• Anaesthesia records where sedation or general anaesthesia was used.
• Payment receipts, transfer records and invoices, including anything paid to an intermediary.
• Quotations and invoices for any corrective or revision procedure obtained later.
• Correspondence with the clinic, including messaging application records and any agency that arranged the trip.

Whether a particular set of facts supports a claim, and which of the routes above applies, depends on the documents in that specific file.