Violation of a person’s right to the protection and promotion of their physical and mental health due to medical negligence
Facts
The applicants are the infant (first applicant), who was diagnosed with a congenital condition resulting from the failure of the esophagus to connect to the stomach at the time of the events, and the infant’s father (second applicant). Since oral feeding was not possible after the surgery, the first applicant was administered nutritional fluids intravenously. While the nutritional solution was being administered, severe swelling developed in the first applicant’s right hand, which led to another surgery at the same hospital. Consequently, the first claimant underwent another surgery at a different hospital, during which a skin graft (the transfer of tissue from one part of the body to another without vascular or nerve connections) was performed.
A full-fledged lawsuit was filed against the Ministry of Health seeking both material and moral damages, alleging medical errors and gross negligence in postnatal care. The Administrative Court dismissed the case, relying on an expert report stating that the relevant healthcare personnel were not at fault. Upon appeal, the Regional Administrative Court ruled that compensation must be paid for the damages resulting from the incident, on the grounds that the administration had failed to take necessary precautions. However, the court ordered the payment of 50,000 TL in non-pecuniary damages to the plaintiffs and dismissed the remaining claims.
Subsequently, based on a panel report prepared following a personal application at a university hospital, it was determined that the first applicant had a 51% disability.
Claims
The plaintiffs argued that their rights to the protection of their physical and mental health had been violated due to the harm they suffered as a result of medical negligence.
The Court’s Assessment
In this case, the lower court ruled that necessary precautions had not been taken and that potential harm should have been prevented. Given this, it cannot be said that there were no deficiencies in the provision of healthcare services.
The decision to award compensation and the method of calculating such compensation are matters of legal interpretation and fall within the discretion of the lower courts. Unless there is a clear judicial error or arbitrariness, the Constitutional Court cannot interfere with the lower court’s exercise of this discretion. However, given that the first plaintiff is currently unable to use his right hand effectively and it is uncertain when he will be able to use it again, it is possible that he has suffered certain material damages. Furthermore, given that the deficiency in services was clearly established and in light of certain documents submitted to the case file, it is unclear why the other plaintiff’s (the first plaintiff’s father) claims for material compensation were rejected.
.
In this context, given the lower court’s acceptance and findings that the damage stemmed from the administration’s failure to take necessary measures, it is clear that accepting only the claim for non-pecuniary damages is insufficient to remedy the consequences of the violation. Indeed, although the lower court identified a fault, it did not conduct a concrete assessment regarding the rejection of the claim for material damages.
Furthermore, it did not adopt an approach that took into account the constitutional requirements regarding the compensation for material damage. Consequently, it was determined that the consequences of the violation were not remedied due to the lower court’s rejection of the applicant’s claims for compensation for material damage. Therefore, under the specific circumstances of the case, it was concluded that the state failed to fulfill its positive obligation to protect and promote the individual’s right to the protection and enhancement of their material and moral well-being.
The Constitutional Court, relying on the reasons outlined above, ruled that the individual’s right to the protection of their material and moral well-being had been violated.