Dental Malpractice in Türkiye: Characterisation, Forum and the Limitation Trap

A dental malpractice claim in Türkiye is settled by three questions long before the dentistry is examined: where you were treated, what was promised, and how fast the clock runs. Treatment at a private dental facility founds a contractual claim heard in the consumer courts; treatment in a public oral and dental health institution founds an administrative claim against the institution, where the dentist cannot be sued personally. What was promised then decides how the contract is characterised — ordinary diagnosis and treatment follows the vekâlet (mandate) model, under which careful conduct is owed, whereas prosthetic and restorative work has been treated as an eser (works) contract, under which a result is owed. And on either characterisation the contractual limitation period under the Turkish Code of Obligations (No. 6098) is five years, not the ten years that applies to obligations generally; where the case is pleaded as defective work, it can be as short as two years from delivery.

That last point is the reason this subject needs a guide of its own rather than a paragraph in a general one. Our main guide to medical malpractice law in Türkiye sets out the framework that applies across healthcare — what counts as malpractice, the basis of liability, the burden of proof, and the compensation available. Dentistry sits inside that framework but diverges from it at three specific points: the contract may be characterised differently, the limitation analysis is materially shorter and starts from a different event, and the record-keeping and consent duties imposed on dental facilities are unusually prescriptive. This guide takes those three points in turn, together with the forum, the correct defendant, the criminal overlay, and the position of patients who travelled to Türkiye for treatment.

Who Is Regulated, and What They Are Allowed to Do

The starting point is Law No. 1219, which defines the scope of dental practice. Under Article 29, a dentist (diş tabibi) is authorised to carry out every professional activity relating to preserving the health of, and to diagnosing, treating and rehabilitating diseases and irregularities of, the teeth, the gums and the oral and jaw tissues directly connected with them. The second paragraph of the same article makes “specialist” a regulated title rather than a description: to be exclusively a specialist in a branch of dentistry and to announce that title, a person must hold a specialisation certificate issued by a dentistry faculty or by a training institution of the Ministry of Health.

Two further provisions matter to patients more often than they should.

Article 41 deals with practice without a diploma. Anyone who — even without a personal profit motive — performs any examination or intervention falling within the dental profession without a diploma, or who opens a business relating to dental clinical services, has their professional practice stopped and is liable to imprisonment from three to five years and a judicial fine of up to one thousand days.

Supplementary Article 7 governs dental prosthesis technicians (diş protez teknikerleri). They may not use titles other than those their diploma entitles them to, may not enter into a direct professional relationship with patients, may not keep in their laboratories instruments and equipment used exclusively in the practice of dentistry, and may not carry out work or give advice beyond the limits set for them. Where a patient’s dealings ran through a laboratory or a non-clinical intermediary rather than through the treating dentist, that is not a detail of the commercial arrangement — it is a regulated boundary.

Finally, Supplementary Article 12 places dentists expressly inside the compulsory professional liability insurance regime. Dentists in public health institutions must insure against damages claimable from them for medical malpractice and against their institution’s recourse, half the premium being paid by each side. Dentists in private institutions or in independent practice must hold professional financial liability insurance; the independently practising take it out themselves, and for those employed by a private institution the institution takes it out. The coverage figures are fixed by separate, regularly updated instruments and should be checked as at the relevant date rather than assumed.

The Two Contract Models — and Why Prosthetic Work Sits Differently

Turkish law offers two statutory models for a contract to do work for another person, and dentistry is capable of falling under either.

• The mandate (vekâlet sözleşmesi), Article 502. The agent undertakes to carry out a piece of business or a transaction for the principal. What is owed is careful conduct, not a result. Article 502 also provides that the mandate rules apply, so far as they suit, to work-performance contracts not otherwise regulated in the Code — which is why the mandate is the residual model for professional services.
• The works contract (eser sözleşmesi), Article 470. The contractor (yüklenici) undertakes to produce a work and the owner of the work to pay a price in return. What is owed is a result. Article 471 sets the standard of performance: the contractor must perform with loyalty and care, judged by the professional and technical rules that a prudent contractor in the same field would observe.

For dentistry the boundary is contested, and it should be presented as contested. Diagnosis and treatment activity — examining, identifying pathology, deciding on a course of care — fits the mandate model, because no practitioner can promise a biological outcome. Prosthetic and restorative work has been treated differently. An appellate decision of the Samsun Regional Court of Justice, 5th Civil Chamber, dated 26 October 2021 and recorded as final in the Ministry of Justice UYAP case-law database, concerned implant treatment at a private oral and dental health polyclinic. The court described the action as one arising from a works contract having dental construction as its subject matter, and, citing the settled formulation drawn from Court of Cassation practice, recorded that a claim concerning aesthetic dental prosthesis work arises from defective performance of a works contract governed by Article 470 and following.

No binding instrument resolves the boundary for dentistry as a whole. What can be said is that the characterisation turns on whether a defined result was promised — and that the more a course of treatment is described, priced and marketed as the delivery of an object with a specified appearance and function, the harder it is to present it afterwards as nothing more than an undertaking of careful effort.

The practical test is not “was this dentistry?” but “was a specific outcome the thing that was sold?” A crown, a bridge, a veneer set or a full-arch implant restoration is a described object with agreed characteristics. That description is the pleading, and it is also, silently, the limitation clock.

What the characterisation changes

Question	Mandate (vekâlet) characterisation	Works (eser) characterisation
What is owed	Careful conduct in carrying out the business (Art. 502)	The production of the promised work (Art. 470)
The standard applied	Care measured against the recognised standard for the professional activity	Loyalty and care judged by the professional and technical rules a prudent contractor in the field would observe (Art. 471)
Ordinary contractual limitation	5 years — Art. 147, item 5	5 years — Art. 147, item 6
Defect-specific limitation	No separate defective-work regime	Art. 478: 2 years from delivery for works other than immovable structures; 20 years where the contractor is at gross fault
Forum against a private provider	Consumer court	Consumer court — the definition in Law No. 6502 covers both

The last row is worth pausing on, because it defuses an argument that is otherwise raised early and often. It is dealt with next.

Forum and Defendant

Private treatment: the consumer track, whichever contract it is

Article 3 of the Consumer Protection Law (No. 6502) defines a consumer transaction as every contract and legal transaction concluded between consumers and persons acting for commercial or professional purposes — and it says so including works, carriage, brokerage, insurance, mandate, banking and similar contracts. Both characterisations are named in the statutory definition. The same article defines a “service” as the subject matter of any consumer transaction other than the supply of goods, done for a fee or benefit.

The consequence is straightforward and useful: the forum does not change with the characterisation. Whether a course of dental treatment is classed as a works contract or a mandate, a claim against a private provider is a consumer matter. That was precisely the reasoning of the 26 October 2021 decision described above, which set aside a commercial court’s ruling in the implant dispute and held that jurisdiction lay with the consumer court under Article 73 of Law No. 6502.

The arbitration-committee line, and what it does to the mediation requirement

Two pre-action mechanisms sit in front of the consumer court, and which one applies depends on the value put on the dispute.

Article 68 of Law No. 6502 makes application to the consumer arbitration committee (tüketici hakem heyeti) compulsory for disputes below a stated value, and disputes above that value cannot be taken there. The limit is not fixed: Article 68 provides that the monetary limits are increased each calendar year by the revaluation rate determined under repeated Article 298 of Tax Procedure Law No. 213, disregarding fractions of one thousand Turkish lira. For the 1 January to 31 December 2026 period the limit is 186,000 TL, set by the communiqué published in the Official Gazette of 23 December 2025, No. 33116, which applied a revaluation rate of 25.49% and entered into force on 1 January 2026. Because it is revalued every 1 January, the limit must be checked against the year in which the dispute is brought, never carried over from an earlier article or an earlier file.

Article 73/A makes applying to a mediator before filing suit a procedural pre-condition (dava şartı) in disputes heard in the consumer courts. But the same provision carves out, among others, disputes falling within the competence of the consumer arbitration committee. The practical effect is a line that many summaries of Turkish mandatory mediation miss:

• Below the limit for the year — the dispute belongs before the consumer arbitration committee, and the mediation pre-condition does not apply to it.
• Above the limit for the year — the consumer court is the forum, and mandatory mediation under Article 73/A must be completed before suit.

Getting this wrong costs time in both directions: a mediation application that was never required, or a claim filed without one that is rejected on procedure without any look at the treatment.

Public treatment: the administrative track

Where the treatment was provided in a public oral and dental health institution, the analysis changes completely. Article 129 of the Constitution provides that damages actions arising from faults committed by public officials in exercising their powers may be brought only against the administration, subject to recourse against the official. This applies to dentists exactly as it does to physicians: a dentist employed in a public facility cannot be sued personally for acts performed in that capacity, and naming them leads to dismissal.

The timetable is set by the Administrative Procedure Law (No. 2577). Article 13 governs claims arising from administrative actions (idari eylem) — the conduct category into which treatment failures fall, as distinct from formal administrative decisions. A person whose rights have been violated by such an action must, before going to court, apply to the relevant administration within one year of the date they learned of the action by written notification or otherwise, and in any event within five years of the date of the action. If the request is rejected wholly or partly, suit may be brought within the litigation period running from the day after notification of that decision; if no reply is given within thirty days, the request is treated as rejected and time runs from the expiry of that period. Under Article 7, the period for bringing suit is sixty days before the administrative courts unless a special law provides otherwise.

Who the defendant actually is on the private side

Private dental facilities are governed by the Ağız ve Diş Sağlığı Hizmeti Sunulan Özel Sağlık Kuruluşları Hakkında Yönetmelik, published in the Official Gazette of 6 October 2022, No. 31975, and amended in 2024 by regulations published on 5 March 2024 (No. 32480) and 15 December 2024 (No. 32753). Article 4 recognises four types of facility, and Article 5 controls who may own them:

Facility type	Who may open it
Muayenehane (single practice)	Only a single dentist authorised to practise independently. A company may not open one.
Poliklinik	A company belonging to one or more dentists authorised to practise independently
Merkez (oral and dental health centre)	Such a company, or a company at least 51% of whose shares are held by a dentist partnership
Hastane (oral and dental health hospital)	A company

This matters for identifying the correct respondent, because the ownership structure is not uniform across the sector and the entity named on the invoice is not always the entity that holds the licence. Two further provisions complete the picture. Article 17 requires a dentist who is a Turkish citizen to be appointed as responsible manager (mesul müdür) in each facility; that person may hold the post in only one facility, may practise dentistry only there, and is responsible for every act connected with the operation and inspection of the facility, being the first-line counterpart of the provincial directorate and the Ministry. Responsibility for providing the infrastructure the health service requires rests with the holder of the licence (ruhsat sahibi).

Separately, Article 43 of Law No. 1219 provides that a dentist may not practise by opening a muayenehane in more than one place. As amended on 21 February 2024 by Law No. 7496, dentists practising independently may employ a dentist in an oral and dental health muayenehane, and the number who may be employed cannot exceed one, under procedures set by the Ministry of Health.

Evidence: The File Decides the Case

Dental files are, on paper, better documented than most medical ones, because the regulation is unusually specific about what must be recorded. That specificity cuts both ways — it gives a patient a defined list of documents to ask for, and it gives a court a defined list of documents whose absence has to be explained.

The record the clinic is required to keep

Article 22 of the private dental facilities regulation requires that patient data be recorded electronically, using a health information management system registered with the Ministry. It requires that patients’ diagnosis and treatment information, any X-ray records, and information on procedures performed under general anaesthesia or sedation be recorded in detail together with tooth numbers. All patient records must be preserved in accordance with the legislation and confidentiality may not be breached — an obligation that runs in parallel with the general regime described in our personal data protection practice. Medical records signed with an electronic signature compliant with Law No. 5070 are accepted as official records.

The tooth-number requirement is the sleeper provision in dental litigation. Every tooth has a standard numeric identifier, so the site of each intervention can be recorded without ambiguity, and a record that says only “extraction” or “restoration” without saying which tooth is not merely a thin record — it is a record that does not comply with the regulation. Radiographs are equally decisive: pre-treatment imaging is often the only objective evidence of what the mouth looked like before anyone touched it.

Consent is a defined document with defined contents

Article 23 of the same regulation states the requirement without qualification: obtaining a consent form in accordance with the relevant legislation is mandatory for all interventions carried out in the facility. The same article requires a patient rights unit (hasta hakları birimi) in polyclinics, centres and hospitals.

What that consent form must contain is fixed by the Patient Rights Regulation. Article 15 lists what the patient must be told:

• the probable causes of the condition and how it will progress;
• by whom, where, in what manner and how the intervention will be carried out, and its estimated duration;
• other diagnosis and treatment options, and the benefits, risks and probable effects of those options on the patient’s health;
• probable complications;
• the probable benefits and risks of refusing;
• important characteristics of the medicines to be used;
• lifestyle recommendations critical to health;
• how to reach medical assistance on the same subject when needed.

Article 18 governs how the information is given, and several of its requirements are routinely compressed in dental practice. The information must be given as plainly as possible, without room for doubt, in a way the patient can understand having regard to their social and cultural level. It is given orally, by the health professional who will perform the intervention, with a defined exception permitting another sufficiently qualified professional where circumstances require and this is explained to the patient. Informing the patient personally is the rule. The patient may request a second opinion from another practitioner on the same complaint. And, save in emergencies, the information is given allowing the patient a reasonable period — it is given in a setting that protects privacy, and on request the relevant units provide information on the cost.

Article 26 then defines the form itself. For cases prescribed by legislation and for interventions medically likely to give rise to a dispute, the provider prepares a consent form containing the information listed in Article 15; that information is conveyed orally and the form is then signed by the patient or legal representative; it is signed in two copies, one placed in the file and the other given to the patient; and it is signed by the health professional who gave the information and will perform the intervention, who is responsible for the accuracy of the information given.

Two consequences follow that patients frequently do not realise. First, you should already have a copy — Article 26 requires one to be handed over, so its absence is itself informative. Second, a signature on a form that does not contain the Article 15 content, obtained from someone who was never given a reasonable period to consider it, is a weaker document than it looks.

Consent also fixes the permitted scope

Article 24 requires the patient’s consent for medical interventions, with parental or guardian permission where the patient is a minor or under legal incapacity. Article 31 is the provision that decides a recurring category of dental dispute: when consent is taken, the patient or legal representative must be informed and enlightened about the subject and consequences of the intervention; the consent covers routine steps that are a necessary continuation of the process; and the intervention must remain within the limits of the consent given. It may be extended without consent only where there is a medical necessity such that failing to extend it could cause loss of an organ or of its function.

Applied to dentistry, that is a real constraint. A treatment plan agreed as conservative restoration is not consent to extraction; consent to work on identified teeth is not consent to work on others; and a plan revised upward mid-course, without a fresh conversation and a fresh form, is exposed on exactly this article.

The treatment plan, the quotation, and what was promised

The treatment plan does double duty. It is clinical evidence, and it is the best contemporaneous record of what was promised — which, as set out above, is the question the characterisation turns on. Alongside it sit the written quotation, the itemised invoice and any correspondence describing the intended result.

Fees themselves are guided rather than fixed. Under Article 40 of Law No. 3224, each December the chamber executive boards prepare a guide tariff (rehber tarife) of examination and treatment fees and send it to the Turkish Dental Association’s Central Executive Board, which approves the proposals as submitted or with such changes as it considers necessary and notifies the tariffs to the Ministry of Health. It is a guide tariff, not a binding price list, and it does not by itself establish that a fee charged was excessive.

One further point belongs here, because it is regularly the reason a patient’s expectations and the clinical record diverge. Promotion by dental facilities is governed, under Article 24 of the private dental facilities regulation, by the Sağlık Hizmetlerinde Tanıtım ve Bilgilendirme Faaliyetleri Hakkında Yönetmelik. That instrument was replaced during 2025: the regulation in force is the one published in the Official Gazette of 12 November 2025, No. 33075, which by its Article 13 repealed the earlier regulation of 29 July 2023 (No. 32263) and provides that references to the repealed text are deemed made to it. Its Article 5 states that concealed or open advertising in the provision of health services is prohibited, and the specific prohibitions include advertising through patients’ or relatives’ expressions of thanks or satisfaction, promotion creating the perception that a device, product or service is different from or superior to others in a way that abuses trust or exploits a lack of information, and any mention of fees, discounts, campaigns or promotions. Article 7 governs images: before-and-after material must be recorded in the same setting and technical conditions, the dates of the procedure and of the image must be stated, no later technological alteration or correction is permitted, and domestic visual content must carry a legible warning that results of any surgical or interventional procedure may vary from person to person and that the patient should obtain detailed advice from the practitioner beforehand.

One qualification matters for patients who travelled. Article 8 of the same regulation carves out international health tourism for facilities and intermediaries holding a Ministry authorisation under the International Health Tourism Regulation (Official Gazette of 26 April 2025, No. 32882). Within that carve-out, sponsored promotion in official languages other than Turkish may be run on separate outward-facing channels; patient stories, comments and expressions of thanks may be published there where the patient’s explicit consent is documented; and under Article 8(3) discount, campaign and competitive-price announcements may be made. Promotion aimed at creating demand among people living in Türkiye remains prohibited, domestic audience targeting may not be selected, and automatic audience targeting must be disabled. Material that was lawful for the outward-facing audience is therefore not evidence of any breach — but it is still a record of what was promised.

Articles 39 and 40 of Law No. 1219 point the same way: a dentist may publish announcements of the place where patients are received and the consulting hours, advertising by other means is prohibited, and announcing an unearned or untrue title or capacity is forbidden. A guarantee of a result is therefore not merely an unusual promise in this sector — it is a promise the provider was not permitted to make.

Limitation: The Shortest Clock Wins

This is where a dental claim most often fails, and where the general framework must not be carried over unqualified. Article 146 of the Code of Obligations provides a ten-year limitation “unless the law provides otherwise” — but for a dentist, the law does provide otherwise.

Article 147 subjects to a five-year period, among others, claims arising from mandate, commission and agency contracts (item 5) and claims arising from a works contract, other than where the contractor has failed to perform its obligations at all or properly with gross fault (item 6). Both statutory models therefore land on five years as the ordinary contractual period. Article 148 provides that these periods cannot be varied by contract — no clause in a clinic’s paperwork can shorten or extend them.

Article 478 then adds a defect-specific regime that exists only on the works characterisation. Where the contractor has produced a defective work, actions on that ground are time-barred, running from the date of delivery, after two years for works other than immovable structures, after five years for immovable structures, and — where the contractor is at gross fault — after twenty years regardless of the nature of the defective work.

Article 72 governs the tort track: two years from the date the injured party learned of both the damage and the person liable, and in any event ten years from the date of the act; and where the compensation arises from an act for which the criminal law prescribes a longer limitation period, that longer period applies.

How the claim is put	Period	Statutory basis
Contract, mandate characterisation	5 years	TBK Art. 147, item 5
Contract, works characterisation	5 years	TBK Art. 147, item 6
Works contract where the contractor is at gross fault in not performing, or not performing properly	The residual ten-year rule, the five-year period being disapplied	TBK Arts. 147, item 6, and 146
Defective work — works other than immovable structures	2 years from delivery	TBK Art. 478
Defective work — contractor at gross fault	20 years from delivery	TBK Art. 478
Tort	2 years from learning of the damage and the liable person; 10 years from the act	TBK Art. 72
Tort where the act is an offence carrying a longer criminal period	The longer criminal period	TBK Art. 72
Public provider — preliminary application to the administration	1 year from learning of the administrative action; 5 years from the action	Law No. 2577, Art. 13
Public provider — suit after rejection	60 days	Law No. 2577, Arts. 7 and 13

The dangerous feature of Article 478 is not the length of the period but its starting point. It runs from delivery, not from discovery. A prosthesis delivered and fitted, which fails eighteen months later and is investigated over the following year, can reach a lawyer’s desk with the two-year period already spent — even though nothing was concealed and nobody delayed.

There is no rule that picks one of these periods for dental cases in advance. The correct approach is the conservative one: identify every period that could apply on the facts, and work to the shortest of them.

The Criminal and Disciplinary Overlay

Where the allegation goes beyond a civil claim, a separate gate applies — and it is one point at which the general position for physicians is often stated too narrowly.

Supplementary Article 18 of Law No. 3359 provides that, for investigations concerning medical acts and applications relating to examination, diagnosis and treatment carried out by physicians and dentists and other health professionals working in public or private health institutions and foundation universities, Law No. 4483 applies, and permission to investigate is granted by the Professional Liability Board (Mesleki Sorumluluk Kurulu) established within the Ministry of Health. The periods in Article 7 of Law No. 4483 are applied twofold. Decisions of the Board may be challenged before the Ankara Regional Administrative Court.

The precision matters. The permission requirement is not confined to the public sector: a criminal complaint about dental treatment at a private clinic passes through the same permission gate. What is confined to the public sector is the separate recourse limb — whether the administration may recover paid compensation from the professional applies to those working in public institutions and State universities, with the Board deciding within one year.

For a patient, three things follow. The Board is not a compensation body and not somewhere a patient applies for damages. Its permission decision is a gate on the criminal investigation, and it therefore sits inside the criminal law track rather than the civil one. And because the criminal and civil tracks interact — Article 72 of the Code of Obligations imports a longer criminal limitation period into the compensation claim where the act is an offence carrying one — the criminal question is not something to be dealt with only after the civil claim is resolved.

The Foreign-Patient Position

Turkish law applies to treatment provided in Türkiye regardless of the patient’s nationality or residence, and a foreign patient has the same civil and administrative remedies as anyone else. The claim is brought in Türkiye, before the Turkish courts, on the same forum analysis set out above: consumer track for a private facility, administrative track for a public one. What differs for a patient who travelled is not the law but the evidence, and dental cases have a particular profile here.

• The file is in Türkiye, in Turkish, and it is required to be detailed. Article 22’s tooth-number and radiograph requirements mean there should be a specific, objective record of what was done. Request it while the relationship is still ordinary. Certified translation will be needed for anything put before a Turkish court.
• You should already hold a consent form. Article 26 requires the form to be signed in two copies with one given to the patient. If none was provided, that is itself a matter to raise.
• The Article 18 requirements are the ones a compressed treatment schedule strains most. Information must be given orally by the professional who will perform the intervention, in a way the patient can understand having regard to their social and cultural level, and — save in emergencies — allowing a reasonable period to consider it. A multi-unit restorative plan explained and consented to on the day of arrival, through an intermediary, does not obviously satisfy that.
• Check who you were actually dealing with. Supplementary Article 7 of Law No. 1219 forbids a dental prosthesis technician from entering into a direct professional relationship with a patient, and Article 5 of the facilities regulation restricts who may own each type of facility. A coordinator or agency is not a treating professional.
• The clock may have started earlier than you think. Where the case is put as defective prosthetic work, Article 478 measures the period from delivery — not from the flight home, and not from the day a dentist in your own country identified the problem. Distance is compatible with a Turkish claim; delay frequently is not.
• Keep whatever you were sent before you travelled. The health-tourism carve-out in Article 8 of the 12 November 2025 promotion regulation permits an authorised facility or intermediary to run outward-facing promotion — including patient stories and, under Article 8(3), price and campaign announcements — on terms that do not apply domestically. That material is a contemporaneous record of what was described and promised, which is the question the characterisation turns on.
• Documentation obtained at home still helps. A thorough, dated assessment by a treating dentist in your own country, with imaging, gives the Turkish court’s expert something to compare against the Turkish record.

What This Means in Practice

Dental claims in Türkiye are won and lost on two things a patient can still influence after treatment has gone wrong: the completeness of the record, and the speed of the limitation analysis.

• Ask what was promised, in writing. The treatment plan and the quotation are the documents that determine whether the case is put as a works contract or a mandate, and that choice reaches into the standard applied and the clock that runs.
• Do not carry over a ten-year assumption. Article 147 puts both characterisations at five years, and Article 478 can compress a prosthetic claim to two years from delivery. The Article 147 periods cannot be shortened or extended by agreement, because Article 148 makes the periods in that section fixed.
• Get the forum right before anything else. Private facility means the consumer track — arbitration committee below the limit for the year, mandatory mediation above it. Public facility means a preliminary application to the administration and a sixty-day window afterwards, against the institution, never against the dentist personally.
• Collect the regulated documents by name. The electronic record with tooth numbers, the radiographs, the anaesthesia or sedation record, the signed consent form containing the Article 15 content, the treatment plan and the invoices. Asking for a defined list produces a different response from asking for “my file”.
• Read the consent against Article 31. The intervention had to stay within the limits of what was consented to. Scope creep in a treatment plan is a distinct point from clinical error, and it is proved on paper rather than on expert opinion.
• Treat the criminal question as parallel, not sequential. The permission regime under Supplementary Article 18 of Law No. 3359 covers dentists in private facilities as well as public ones, and a longer criminal limitation period can feed back into the civil claim.

The civil framework these claims sit inside — liability, proof, forum and pre-action steps — is covered in our guide to medical malpractice law in Türkiye, alongside our dedicated guides on cosmetic surgery malpractice, hair transplant complications, medical malpractice compensation calculations, medical tourism legal rights, and the wider regulatory background across our health law practice. The consolidated texts of the laws and regulations cited here are published on the Presidency’s official legislation database, Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi; because the monetary limits and several of the provisions discussed are amended on a regular cycle, they should be confirmed as at the date they are relied on.

---

Related Practice Areas

• Personal Data Protection (KVKK)
• Artificial Intelligence Law
• Health & Medical Law
• Criminal Law