Decision regarding the defendant who bargained for a stent during an angiogram
The incident occurred on January 13, 2025. Hayrettin Erden, who was referred from a public hospital to a private hospital with complaints of chest pain, was taken to intensive care and was told that he needed an angiogram. An indictment was prepared against accountant Hande Yolaç, who was bargaining for a stent dialysis while Erden was undergoing an angiogram. In the indictment prepared for Yolaç, a sentence of 3 to 10 years in prison was requested for the crime of 'fraud by taking advantage of a dangerous situation or difficult conditions in which a person is'.
At the hearing held at Bakırköy 17th High Criminal Court, the defendant Hande Yolaç and the complainant Hayrettin Erdne were present. Hayrettin Erden stated that he was told that he needed an angiogram at the private hospital he went to, and that they asked for 7 thousand liras because an entry would be made from the arm during the procedure, and that they also suggested different stents instead of the stent covered by the state, but he refused. Stating that 2 stents were inserted instead of 3 at the end of the procedure and that an unfair payment was made, Erden complained about the hospital staff and doctors.
He denied the chargesIn her defense, defendant Hande Yolaç stated that she was working as a patient information officer at the hospital where she worked at the time of the incident, and that she usually gave information to the relatives of the patients in her own room, but in this incident, when the patient directly requested information, she went to him and gave information about the angiography procedure. In her defense, Yolaç also stated that she explained to the patient whether the procedure could be performed in the groin or the arm, and that the patient preferred the stent provided by the state. Defendant Yolaç also argued that she learned later that the procedure was performed in the arm, and that she only gave guidance regarding the payment, and did not make a final decision or collection transaction.
Complainant Hayrettin Erden stated that after he was admitted to the hospital, the hospital manager delayed him and then the doctor came. He stated that the procedure was not performed until the morning and that he was told that the stent would be inserted in the morning. Erden also stated that he was not informed about the angiography other than the documents that his wife signed, and that the doctor asked him in the anesthesia department whether the procedure would be performed in the groin or the arm. Erden, who stated that Hande Yolaç was with the doctor who asked her these questions, said, "The defendant said he would give a price. When the stent bargaining started, I said, 'Put in whatever the state gives me.' After 2 stents were put in, they took me to intensive care. The defendant came to me on the day I was to be discharged and said we would go to the accounting department. I was going to pay 5 thousand liras to the accounting department, but they said I had to pay 7 thousand liras. We requested an invoice, and finally they gave us a written document on A4 paper, like a receipt. We asked for a stamp to be put on it, and then I paid 7 thousand liras. My complaint was about the hospital management, I have no complaints about the defendant."
The Public Prosecutor announced his opinion on the matter and stated that the defendant, who was understood to be working as a cardiology coordinator at the hospital, started talking about the features and prices of the stents to be inserted under the difficult conditions in which the complainant was waiting for an angiogram, and at a time when he had no means of supervision and control despite his weak will, and the defendant was found to be working as a cardiology coordinator at the hospital. The opinion explained that the angiogram was performed on the arm and that the complainant was fitted with 2 stents covered by the Social Security Institution. The Public Prosecutor also stated in his opinion that the hospital had gained an unfair advantage by taking 7 thousand liras from the complainant despite the fact that emergency health services were provided, even though the hospital should not have charged any fee. The opinion also stated that the defendant committed the crime of qualified fraud by corrupting the complainant's will with fraudulent actions, and that the complainant's damages were compensated during the investigation phase. A prison sentence of 3 to 10 years was requested for Hande Yolaç for the crime of 'fraud by taking advantage of a dangerous situation or difficult conditions in which a person is'.
After the opinion, the court announced its decision and sentenced the defendant Hande Yolaç to 1 year, 1 month and 10 days in prison by applying a reduction in sentence for the crime of "fraud by taking advantage of a dangerous situation or difficult conditions in which a person is in". Due to the defendant's time in prison, her lack of a criminal record, the fact that she has remedied the damage and the positive opinion that she will not commit another crime, it was decided to postpone the announcement of the verdict regarding Yolaç. The court ruled that the defendant be released after imposing a judicial control measure in the form of a ban on traveling abroad.
FROM THE INDICTMENTThe indictment prepared by the Bakırköy Public Prosecutor's Office stated that an investigation was launched after the images of defendant Hande Yolaç bargaining over the price during an emergency intervention on complainant Hayrettin Erden in a private hospital in Bahçelievler on January 13, 2025 were published in the press. It was announced that complainant Hayrettin Erden's willpower was weak under the difficult conditions he was in while waiting for the procedure on a stretcher in the hospital where he was urgently transferred and taken to the intensive care unit. The indictment also noted that defendant Hande Yolaç was asked for a fee that should not have been requested according to the legislation by stating that an angiogram would be healthier and that there was a difference in fee, that 7 thousand liras were taken from the complainant despite the fact that it was a free health service with fraudulent acts, and that the crime of 'fraud by taking advantage of the dangerous situation or difficult conditions in which the person is' was committed. A prison sentence of 3 to 10 years was requested for the defendant Hande Yolaç for the crime of 'fraud by taking advantage of a dangerous situation or difficult conditions that a person is in'.
Habertürk
