143 Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review 2022 Hacı KARA persons to be informed other than the patient. All health-related interventions can be made with the free and informed consent of the person. Consent is void if it has been obtained through coercion, threat, incomplete disclosure, or deception. In emergencies, the consent of the legal representative is obtained in cases where the patient is underage or unconscious, or unable to make a decision. With its arrangement, it is explained how the lighting will be made. In informed consent, the burden of proof is on the physician or the hospital. As such, it is imperative for the defendants to inform the patient of the possible outcome and complications prior to surgery. In the consent document dated 06.07.2009 submitted to the file, it cannot be understood with the content of the file that the defendant informed the plaintiff about this issue and warned by making justified explanations; whether the plaintiff was sufficiently enlightened and whether the plaintiff would consent to this operation even if the complications of the operation were known. In general terms, it was reported that he was aware of the side effects and complications, and the complications of this type of surgery were not explained. On the other hand, in the report of the Forensic Medicine Institute 3rd Forensic Medicine Specialization Board dated 03.10.2012, which was taken by the court, it was stated that “... the plaintiff performed SMR surgery with the diagnosis of septum deviation in the defendant Private B... Hospital, and septum perforation occurred after the operation, it was stated that the perforation that occurred is one of the complications that may occur during this type of surgery, that the patient should be informed if perforation is detected, but it is not clear when the perforation develops. The Forensic Medicine report based on the judgment is not sufficient to determine whether the defendant physician is at fault. In that case, the court should make a decision by obtaining a report that is suitable for the inspection of the party, the court and the Supreme Court, explaining the reasons, whether the defendant physician has a fault in the nose surgery of the plaintiff and whether there is a permanent symptom after the operation, from the panel of experts to be selected from the medical faculty, where the ENT specialists are present, regarding the operation undergone by the plaintiff. If it is determined that the perforation in the claimant is a complication, it should be considered that the illumination is not sufficient and a decision should be
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1