A person with hemorrhoids and increasing pains had surgery under his relative’s identity card because he did not have social security. Turkey Social Security Institution (SGK) filed a lawsuit against the patient who underwent surgery on the same day, on charges of “qualified fraud and forgery of official documents”.
Hesitating to go to the hospital because he did not have insurance, the patient went to the hospital with his relative’s identity card. The patient, who entered the emergency room, was operated on the same day. It was determined that the patient, who regained his health, was treated with a relative’s identity.
Covering the treatment costs of ₺1178, SGK applied to the 2nd High Criminal Court, claiming that the official document was forged. The court ruled that the crime of defrauding the public institution would not occur, as there was an obligation to take the identity document of his relative and have the surgery done through him, in order to get treatment for the sudden illness of the uninsured defendant. When the SGK appealed the decision, the 15th Penal Chamber of the Supreme Court intervened.
Supreme Court did not fine the defendant
The Chamber upheld the court decision:
“It has been claimed that it was met by the participating institution and that in this way, the defendants acted in unanimity of opinion and action and harmed the participating institution. It is understood that the accused went to the hospital, was examined by the doctor, and underwent surgery on the same day, after registering to the hospital’s general surgery polyclinic with the help of the defendants who were on duty there and were acquitted. In the concrete incident where the defendants were alleged to have harmed the participating institution by acting in unison of opinion and action, there was no misconduct in the acceptance and practice of the court, which was based on the reasoning that the defendant’s action regarding the alleged crime was within the scope of necessity, in line with the defendant’s defenses, hospital and SGK response letters, and other evidence. It was unanimously decided to approve the judgments, rejecting the objections of the attorney who attended the trial, the evidence gathered and shown at the place of the decision, the opinion and discretion of the court in accordance with the results of the prosecution, and the incomplete research and the conclusion of the verdict according to the scope of the examined file.”