Service Failure of the Administration in Health Services is a Prerequisite for Compensation
In the health service, where the injured person is the beneficiary of the service and the service is of a risky nature, in order for the administration to be liable for compensation, the damage must have occurred as a result of the administration’s service fault.
In the case, the Forensic Medicine Institute 2nd In the report dated 15/05/2015 from the Forensic Medicine Specialized Board, it was determined that intramuscular injection was performed in the plaintiff’s hip, it is medically known that the injected drugs can cause nerve damage by intra-tissue spread, and this situation can cause unforeseeable and unpreventable disasters even if the injections are performed in accordance with the technique, It is stated that this situation is characterized as a complication that does not arise from any defect and negligence that may occur despite all kinds of care, and since there is no medical evidence in terms of the incompatibility of the injection technique and the applied area, when all the findings are evaluated as a whole, no fault can be attributed to the healthcare personnel who administered the injection and the relevant physician who ordered the injection.
In this case, the physician who ordered the injection and the health personnel who administered the injection did not have any fault due to the damage to the plaintiff’s left leg after the injection from the left hip in Kırıkkale High Specialization Hospital Hacı Hidayet Doğruer Additional Service Building Emergency Service, and the defendant administration did not have a service defect in the incident since the situation that occurred was considered as an expected complication of injection applications, In the event that the beneficiary of the health service, which is one of the services that carries risk within its structure, suffers damage, compensation for this damage can only be possible in the presence of the administration’s service fault, therefore, based on the principle of strict liability, there was no legal accuracy in the administrative court decision to accept the plaintiff’s request for material and moral compensation. (15th Chamber of the Council of State – Decision: 2016/3880).
