Waiver Not to Sue a Clinic Abroad: What Five Laws Say

Some clinic paperwork asks the patient to promise not to sue. The wording varies: "the patient waives all rights to future claims", or "the clinic is not responsible for unexpected surgical outcomes". A Turkish law firm that reviews clinic documents for foreign patients lists both as lines it has seen.¹

Signing a line like that feels final. In the five legal systems compared below, it usually is not. Each one limits or voids a term that excludes liability for injury caused by negligence. They differ in how far they go, and in which one applies to an operation done abroad.

Five rules, side by side

The UK: signing does not mean agreeing to the risk

Section 65 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is short. A trader "cannot by a term of a consumer contract or by a consumer notice exclude or restrict liability" for death or personal injury caused by negligence.²

The second subsection closes the obvious loophole. Agreeing to such a term, or knowing about it, does not on its own mean the person "voluntarily" accepted the risk.² "Personal injury" includes "any impairment of physical or mental condition".²

The EU: on the list of unfair terms

The EU's 1993 directive on unfair contract terms has an annex of terms that may be unfair. The first entry is a term "excluding or limiting the legal liability of a seller or supplier in the event of the death of a consumer or personal injury".³

The list is "indicative and non-exhaustive".³ So the directive does not void the term by itself. Each EU country's courts decide, and an unfair term is "not binding on the consumer" while the rest of the contract stands.³

Whose law decides an operation abroad

This is where a UK or EU patient's home protection can fall away. EU rules on contract law, which the UK kept after Brexit, normally give a consumer the law of their home country. That rule does not apply when the service is supplied "exclusively in a country other than that in which he has his habitual residence".⁹

Surgery in Istanbul is supplied in Istanbul. Without a valid choice of law, a service contract follows the law where the provider is based.⁹ A negligence claim brought outside the contract follows the law of the country "in which the damage occurs".¹⁰ For an operation in Turkey, both routes usually lead to Turkish law. Our earlier article on suing a clinic abroad covers which court can hear the case.

Turkey: void for gross fault, contested for slight fault

Turkey's Code of Obligations, adopted in January 2011, deals with the question in Article 115.⁴ An advance agreement that the debtor will not be liable for gross fault is "kesin olarak hükümsüzdür", absolutely void.⁴

The third paragraph goes further. It covers services that need expertise and may only be practised with a licence from the law or the authorities. For those, an advance waiver of liability for even slight fault is also void.⁴ Medicine is licensed.

Turkish commentators still disagree on how this applies to private clinics. A 2022 article by a Turkish lawyer sets out two views.⁵ One says a slight-fault waiver may be valid but a judge can set it aside. The other says it should be invalid "her hal ve şart altında", in every case.⁵ That article cites no Court of Cassation decision, and we did not find one.

The law firm that reviews clinic documents calls a "waives all rights to future claims" line "completely invalid under Turkish civil law".¹ It cites no article number. Its reading matches the text of Article 115 for gross fault.

Hungary: void without conditions

Hungary's Civil Code is the bluntest of the five. Section 6:152 says that clauses "limiting or excluding liability for breach of contract intentionally, as well as for the breach of contract harming human life, physical integrity and health shall be null and void."⁶

A University of Miskolc law professor describes it as an "unconditional (absolute) and minimum protection" that applies to all types of contract.⁶ An international law firm's 2026 guide to Hungarian contract law reads the section the same way.⁷

California: the 1963 hospital case

In the US the answer is state by state. California's Supreme Court ruled on a hospital release in 1963. A patient was admitted to the University of California, Los Angeles medical centre. As a condition of admission, the patient signed a release covering "any and all liability for the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of its employees".⁸

The California Supreme Court held the release invalid because a hospital's service is in the public interest, according to a summary of the case.⁸ We could not fetch the opinion itself, so this account is relayed.

What the waiver rules leave out

• A void waiver is not a won case. Every rule here removes a defence. The patient still has to prove negligence, and none of these laws lowers that bar.
• They cover negligence, not every bad result. Section 65 is about liability for negligence.² An outcome that went badly with reasonable care is a different claim.
• Turkey's slight-fault rule is unsettled in practice. The statute is clear. How courts apply it to private clinics is what the commentators dispute.⁵
• A consent form is not a waiver. The Turkish firm reports that courts there hold "informed consent cannot be used as a shield against proven negligence".¹ That is the firm's account, and it names no decision.

What to do with a waiver in your paperwork

Do not refuse surgery over it, and do not assume it ends your options. Keep a copy of everything you signed, in the language you signed it in.

If something goes wrong, take the paperwork to a lawyer qualified in the country where you were treated. Ask one question first: which law applies, and does it let this clause stand?

Footnotes

1. https://oranpartners.com/articles/foreign-patients-hidden-waivers-medical-malpractice-turkey/ — Oran Partners (law firm, Turkey), "Hidden Waivers in Turkish Clinics" (published Nov 8, 2025). Accessed Oct 29, 2026. ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/65 — UK Parliament, Consumer Rights Act 2015, section 65 "Bar on exclusion or restriction of negligence liability". Accessed Oct 29, 2026. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

3. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/1993/13/annex — Council of the European Union, Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, Annex point 1(a), with Articles 3(3) and 6(1) (published Apr 1993). Accessed Oct 29, 2026. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

4. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.6098.pdf — Republic of Türkiye, Türk Borçlar Kanunu (Turkish Code of Obligations), Law No. 6098, Article 115 (adopted Jan 11, 2011). Accessed Oct 29, 2026. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

5. https://www.hukukihaber.net/teshis-ve-tedavi-sozlesmesinden-dogacak-sorumlulugun-sorumsuzluk-anlasmasi-ile-sinirlandirilmasi — Abdullah Yıldız (lawyer), Hukuki Haber, "Teşhis ve tedavi sözleşmesinden doğacak sorumluluğun sorumsuzluk anlaşması ile sınırlandırılması" (published Jun 30, 2022). Accessed Oct 29, 2026. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

6. https://ojs.lib.unideb.hu/profuturo/article/download/6714/6228/14841 — Réka Pusztahelyi, University of Miskolc, "Reflections on the validity of exculpatory clauses in light of Section 6:152 of the Hungarian Civil Code", Pro Futuro 2019/4. Accessed Oct 29, 2026. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

7. https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/limitations-and-exclusions-of-liability-in-b2b-contracts/hungary — CMS (law firm), "Limitations and exclusions of liability in business to business contracts in Hungary" (published Oct 2026). Accessed Oct 29, 2026. ↩ ↩²

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunkl_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California — Wikipedia, "Tunkl v. Regents of the University of California", summarising 60 Cal.2d 92 (decided Jul 9, 1963). Accessed Oct 29, 2026. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

9. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2008/593/article/6 — Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I), Article 6(1) and 6(4)(a), and Article 4(1)(b), as retained in UK law. Accessed Oct 29, 2026. ↩ ↩²

10. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2007/864/article/4 — Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), Article 4(1), as retained in UK law. Accessed Oct 29, 2026. ↩

Show all 10 sources