The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 October 2013 as a Committee composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and, Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 January 2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs. Mübeyen Polat, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Elazığ. She was represented before the Court by Mr M. Özbayrak and Mr G. Özbayrak, lawyers practising in Ankara. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and appearing from the case file, may be summarised as follows. On 12 September 2002 Pınar Baloğlu, the applicant’s daughter, consulted a physician at the Ankara Bayındır Hospital as she had been suffering from stomach pain. On 13 September 2002 on suspicion of stomach cancer and/or...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 3143/12 Mübeyen POLAT against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 October 2013 as a Committee composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and, Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 January 2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs. Mübeyen Polat, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Elazığ. She was represented before the Court by Mr M. Özbayrak and Mr G. Özbayrak, lawyers practising in Ankara. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and appearing from the case file, may be summarised as follows. On 12 September 2002 Pınar Baloğlu, the applicant’s daughter, consulted a physician at the Ankara Bayındır Hospital as she had been suffering from stomach pain. On 13 September 2002 on suspicion of stomach cancer and/or gastro-intestinal bleeding, she was admitted to the Ankara Bayındır Hospital for an upper gastro-intestinal endoscopy and biopsy. She was diagnosed with "giant stomach ulcer (CA?)". On 14 September 2002 further examinations, including a tomography, were carried out and the patient was discharged. On 18 September 2002 she was diagnosed with gastritis. According to the witness statement of the physician concerned another endoscopy was recommended.
2 POLAT v. TURKEY DECISION On 25 November 2002, on 25 December 2002 she was referred to the Ankara Güven Hospital with the diagnoses of ulcer of duodenum bulbus and pyloric stenosis. Anti-ulcer treatment was continued. The biopsy results dated 26 December 2002 showed gastric activity (+) and HP (helicobacter pylori) (+). On 21 April 2003 an endoscopic biopsy was performed, which pointed to chronic gastritis (+) ulcerative activity (+) HP (+). On the same day, the applicant’s daughter consulted another specialist physician. On 12 May 2003 the physician who examined her at the Ankara University, School of Medicine, İbn-i Sina Hospital, made the diagnosis of stomach cancer on the same day and decided to operate on her. During the operation, it turned out that the cancer had been in an advanced stage and spread. On 15 May 2003 she was discharged. Subsequently, she was admitted to hospital several times. On 10 August 2004 the applicant’s daughter died of cardiopulmonary arrest associated with stomach cancer at the age of 29. On 9 February 2005 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor of Ankara against five physicians who had been involved in her daughter’s medical examinations and treatment prior to the diagnosis of cancer as well as the presidents of the Kavaklıdere Hospital and the Bayındır Hospital. The Forensic Medicine Institute concluded that the physicians involved in the patient’s treatment prior to the diagnosis of cancer had not been at fault. The expert witnesses observed that since the tomography dated ...