{"id":3511,"date":"2021-02-24T13:15:38","date_gmt":"2021-02-24T10:15:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.efeshukuk.com\/?p=3511"},"modified":"2021-06-24T09:24:01","modified_gmt":"2021-06-24T06:24:01","slug":"yargitay-kararlari-kapsaminda-malpraktis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/efeshukuk.com\/en\/yargitay-kararlari-kapsaminda-malpraktis\/","title":{"rendered":"Malpractice within the Scope of Supreme Court Decisions"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Yarg\u0131tay<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Malpractice within the Scope of Supreme Court Decisions <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Yarg\u0131tay 4. Hukuk Dairesi E. 1976\/692 K. 1976\/11046<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

...The defendant is an oral surgeon. The injury he caused was outside his area of expertise, but allegedly stemmed from the misuse of the equipment he was authorized to use. While in some cases, particularly in the medical profession, the health council is obligated to provide the final and definitive opinion, the report issued by this high council does not correspond to the incident and its consequences. The report states that the malfunctions resulted from (the patient's constitutional causes, personal predisposition, and hypersensitivity to radiation). However, the specialist physician should consider the patient's constitution, personal condition, and hypersensitivity to radiation beforehand and conduct the treatment in a way that will eliminate the consequences of these effects. It is impossible for the health council to accept that a doctor cannot be held responsible for the consequences of an effect caused by a specialist without any examination of the patient's constitution, personal condition, and hypersensitivity to radiation. Otherwise, there would be no difference between the damage caused by a doctor, a technician, or a worker. The specialist doctor must work in a way that eliminates all three of these dangers. If he fails to do so, or if his efforts lead to such a result, he will be held responsible\u2026<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yarg\u0131tay 2. Ceza Dairesi E. 1996\/268 K. 1996\/1025<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

...The hospital's Anesthesia and Reanimation department is responsible for personally preparing the anesthesia procedures before the surgery, being present and performing the surgery itself, and supervising the technicians. Uzman\u0131 Dr. San\u0131k Mehmet’in, bu g\u00f6revlerin hi\u00e7 birini yerine getirmemek ve ba\u015ftan sona \u00f6zensiz ve denetimsiz davranmakla, olayda asli kusurlu olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi,<\/strong> anestezi teknisyeni san\u0131klar H\u00fcsniye ile Bediha’n\u0131n da anestezi cihaz\u0131n\u0131 ve ameliyat masas\u0131n\u0131 ameliyattan \u00f6nce kontrolle ameliyata haz\u0131r hale getirmek, oksijen ve azotperoksit t\u00fcplerinin dolu olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kontrol etmekle ve ameliyat esnas\u0131nda de\u011fi\u015ftirilen oksijen t\u00fcp\u00fcn\u00fc de bizzat de\u011fi\u015ftirmekle g\u00f6revli olduklar\u0131 halde, ameliyat \u00f6ncesinde bunlar\u0131 yapmayarak bir saatlik ameliyatta 15 dakikal\u0131k oksijen kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak ameliyat esnas\u0131nda farkedip, kendileri yerine yetkisiz hizmetliye t\u00fcp\u00fc de\u011fi\u015ftirtmek ve t\u00fcm ay\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 \u00f6zelliklerine ra\u011fmen kontrol etmemekle, s\u0131fatlar\u0131 ve konumlar\u0131 itibariyle While not to the same extent as a specialist doctor, it did have significant and substantial flaws.<\/strong>\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yarg\u0131tay 4. Hukuk Dairesi E. 1993\/8557 K. 1994\/2138<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, all shortcomings (even minor ones) within a doctor's professional field should be considered an element of responsibility. Doctors are obligated to exercise not only professional but also general life experience-based care and diligence, as is expected of anyone, to prevent harm to their patients. While conducting medical practice, doctors must fulfill certain professional requirements, assess the patient's condition, observe and apply the rules of medical science, and administer treatment while taking all necessary precautions.<\/strong> In cases where there is even the slightest hesitation, the doctor is obligated to conduct research to alleviate that hesitation and, in the meantime, take preventive measures. When choosing among various treatment methods, the doctor must consider the patient's characteristics, avoid putting them at unnecessary risk, and opt for the safest course of action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In reality, a client who trusts a professional, specifically a doctor acting as their representative, is justified in expecting meticulous care and attention. A representative who fails to exercise this meticulous care should be considered to have failed to properly fulfill their mandate, in accordance with Article 394\/1 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supreme Court of Appeals, 4th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2016\/3362, Decision No. 2016\/6615<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Davac\u0131n\u0131n meydana gelen olay sebebiyle \u00fc\u00e7 di\u015fini ve bu di\u015fleri \u00e7evreleyen kemik dokusunu kaybetti\u011fi ve \u00fcst \u00e7enesinde bu sebeple bo\u015fluk olu\u015ftu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Daval\u0131 hekimin di\u015f \u00e7ekimi s\u0131ras\u0131nda \u00fcst \u00e7ene tespitini yeterince sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kopan \u00e7ene kemi\u011finin yeniden olu\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, m\u00fcdahale sonras\u0131 b\u00f6lgenin s\u00fct\u00fcre edilerek ileri bir merkeze y\u00f6nlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekirken bunun yerine getirilmedi\u011fi ve hekimin kusurlu eylemi sonucu davac\u0131n\u0131n zarara u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sabittir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiff requested a court to determine whether the gap in their jaw could be corrected with treatments such as prosthetics or implants, the cost of such treatment, the frequency with which the prosthesis would need to be replaced, and the cost of replacements, and to award compensation for these costs. However, the court did not conduct any examination or evaluation in this regard. It cannot be expected that the individual would have the treatment done themselves, obtain invoices and documentation, and then demand compensation for this amount from the perpetrator of the wrongful act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mahkemece yap\u0131lacak i\u015f; davac\u0131y\u0131 \u00fcniversite di\u015f hekimli\u011fi fak\u00fcltesinde g\u00f6revli bilirki\u015fi heyetine mevcutlu olarak g\u00f6nderip muayenesini yapt\u0131rmak, davaya konu di\u015f \u00e7ekimi sebebiyle meydana gelen olumsuzlu\u011fun giderilmesi i\u00e7in yap\u0131labilecek tedavileri sorup giderini hesaplatt\u0131rmak, ayr\u0131ca yap\u0131lacak i\u015flemin yenilenmesi gerekip gerekmedi\u011fini ve gerekmesi halinde yenileme giderlerinin ne kadar olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit ettirmek, davac\u0131n\u0131n talebini de g\u00f6zeterek bu miktara karar vermektir. <\/strong>Requiring documentation of the damages is incorrect. The judgment was rendered based on flawed reasoning and insufficient investigation, which is contrary to procedure and law; therefore, the decision must be overturned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, Case No. 2013\/11554, Decision No. 2013\/13257<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Haks\u0131z eylem ve kaza sonucu yaralanan ki\u015fi, t\u00fcm\u00fc ile iyile\u015fip eski sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131na kavu\u015funcaya kadar yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ileride yapaca\u011f\u0131 t\u00fcm masraflar\u0131 isteyebilir. Bunun t\u0131bb\u0131 tedavi ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcne “tedavi giderleri” ve eski sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131na kavu\u015fup yeniden \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya ve g\u00fcnl\u00fck i\u015flerini s\u00fcrd\u00fcrebilecek duruma gelinceye kadar yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve yapaca\u011f\u0131 t\u00fcm masraflara “iyile\u015fme giderleri” denilmektedir<\/u><\/strong>. Law of Obligations<\/a> 46.maddesi 1.f\u0131kras\u0131nda, zarar g\u00f6rene, kapsam\u0131n\u0131 belirtmeksizin “b\u00fct\u00fcn masraflar\u0131n\u0131” isteme hakk\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. ( 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 TBK’nun <\/a>54<\/a>. maddesinde bedensel zararlar tedavi giderleri, kazan\u00e7 kayb\u0131, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn azalmas\u0131ndan ya da yitirilmesinden do\u011fan kay\u0131plar, ekonomik gelece\u011fin sars\u0131lmas\u0131ndan do\u011fan kay\u0131plar olarak a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirlenmi\u015ftir. ) Masraflar kavram\u0131n\u0131n kapsam\u0131na, zarar g\u00f6renin, beden b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc eski haline getirmeye, yani iyile\u015fmeyi sa\u011flamaya veya hastal\u0131k ya da sakatl\u0131\u011f\u0131n artmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemeye y\u00f6nelik harcamak durumunda oldu\u011fu ve ileride harcamas\u0131 olas\u0131 b\u00fct\u00fcn masraflar girer. \u0130lerde yap\u0131lmas\u0131 zorunlu tedavi giderleri “ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015f zarar” niteli\u011finde olup uzman bilirki\u015fiye hesaplat\u0131larak h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other works that may be of interest to you;<\/p>\n\n\n\n