13. Legal Department 2016/18107 E. , 2018/3804 K.
“Text of Jurisprudence”
COURT OF First Instance: Court of First Instance
At the end of the trial of the compensation case between the parties, the file was examined and considered by the plaintiffs’ lawyer upon appeal within the period of the decision to dismiss the case for reasons written in the dec.
Decision
The plaintiffs attorney and their client’s facial paralysis due to illness, the defendant company was in the hospital, a patient of the doctor the other defendant, is the result of the examination to the intensive use of drugs containing one of cortisone treatment started later in the disease, the increasing number of different hospitals, being treated in a hospital in the Middle East received the pathology report of drug use cortisone cause you to melt right foot and the head of the bone ring bone ring made understood that the right foot surgery animation, …… Claiming that the left foot ring bone was revived during the surgery performed at Başkent Hospital, the defendants were defective, he asked that the defendants be decided to collect 1,000.00 TL financial compensation and 100,000.00 TL non-pecuniary compensation from the defendants.
The defendants have asked for the case to be dismissed.
The court decided to dismiss the case due to the statute of limitations; the decision was appealed by the deputy plaintiffs.
3 of the Law No. 1-6502 on Consumer Protection. according to the article, Consumer, any natural or legal person, who act for commercial or professional purposes, the Consumer process; in markets for goods or services, including public entities, commercial or professional purposes, or acting for or on behalf established between natural or legal persons who act on her behalf and consumers, work, transportation, brokerage, insurance, attorneys, and similar contractual and legal contracts of all kinds, including banking refers to the process.
article 73 of the law No. 6502. its article provided that any disputes related to the implementation of this Law will be considered in consumer courts.
The fact that a legal transaction is regulated only by law No. 6502 alone does not require that the dispute arising from that transaction be heard in the consumer court. In order for a legal act to be recognized as remaining within the scope of law No. 6502, one of the parties must be a consumer.
In the concrete case, the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit by claiming that they suffered material and moral damage due to the damages caused by the drug used for treatment in the body as a result of the examination conducted by the other defendant doctor working at the defendant hospital. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is a power of attorney agreement, and this is the practice of our apartment, which has not changed since dec. The power of attorney agreement has been entered into the scope of law No. 6502, which entered into force on 28.5.2014, and in cases filed before 28.5.2014, the courts that were in charge at the time of its opening are in charge. Indeed, this law also temporary 6502 1. it is connected to the solution by its substance. The regulations related to the duty are related to public order and are officially observed at every stage of the trial, even if the parties do not put forward them. There is no earned right in matters related to the task. Considering that the Court opened the case on 14.4.2015 after the entry into force of law No. 6502 and in this context the court responsible for resolving the dispute is the Consumer Court, the Consumer Courts should be given a decision on dismissal, while the fact that it was decided in writing is contrary to the procedure and law and requires overturning.
2-According to the reason for the violation, there is no need to examine the other appeals of the plaintiffs for the time being.
CONCLUSION: It was decided unanimously on 29/03/2018 that the provision appealed for the reasons described in paragraph (1) above should be OVERTURNED, for the reason described in paragraph (2) there is no place to examine the plaintiffs’ other appeals for the time being, the refund of the £ 29.20 fee received in advance to the plaintiffs on request, the way to correct the decision within 15 days of notification in accordance with Article 440/I of the HUMK was clear.
You can read our other articles and petition examples by clicking here