149 Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review 2022 Hacı KARA Problem of Recourse to a Public Official in Administrative Law, Fikret Eren’s Gift 2006, p. 1057). As a matter of fact, it is also stated in the doctrine that the state can recourse to the public official who caused the damage for the compensation paid to the injured person at the rate of fault according to the general principles. In the concrete case; in the file numbered T. 19.09.2012, 2011/563 E. and 2013/406 K. of Kuşadası 1 Criminal Court of First Instance, where the plaintiff caused the death of Raziye Pınar by negligence as a result of the examination and treatment performed with the non-trial doctor while she was working as a doctor in the public hospital. It is clear from the Forensic Medicine Institute report. In the full remedy action brought by the relatives of the deceased against the Ministry of Health, Aydın 2 Administrative Court, with its decision numbered 2016/463 E. and 2017/798 K., decided to pay the plaintiffs 80,000 TL of non-pecuniary damages. The Ministry of Health demanded % of the payment made to the relatives of the deceased on the grounds that he was one of the two doctors who performed the treatment, and the plaintiff/insured paid 53,090 TL from the amount paid to the Ministry out of the case. In this case, the plaintiff/insured requested the amount paid to the administration from the insurer. However, as it can be understood from the explanations above, the public official can only recourse to the doctor at the rate of his fault. As such, taking into account the defense of the defendant insurer that the insured doctor will be liable for the damage at the rate of his fault, an expert report determining the defect rate in the medical practice of the insured doctor that caused the damage in an auditable manner, is obtained in an amount corresponding to the doctor’s fault rate from the compensation paid to the relatives of the deceased in accordance with the Administrative Court’s decision. While the insurance company should be held responsible, it was not appropriate to hold the defendant responsible for the entire recourse payment made to the administration by the insured doctor in writing, and it was decided to reverse the decision for the benefit of the defendant.72 According to the decision numbered Y 11. HD, T. 13.1.2016, E. 2015/14376, and K. 2016/249: “The decision of the Court of … dated 72 https://karararama.yargitay.gov.tr/YargitayBilgiBankasiIstemciWeb/, (Date of Access: 28.08.2019).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1