Man Sues Surgeon After Manhood Enlargement Op Left Him Smaller Than Ever

A man who says a botched penis enlargement operation left him with a smaller manhood than ever is suing his doctor for GPB 13,000 compensation.

Photo shows an illustrative image of Tekirdag, undated. Tekirdag is a city in Turkey, located on the north coast of the Sea of Marmara, in the region of East Thrace. (Newsflash)

Wealthy banker Ilter Turkmen, from Tekirdag, Turkey, turned to surgeon Dr Haluk Soylemez to boost his 4.7 inch todger.

But, he claims, instead of increasing its length by up to two inches, the op shrank his manhood down to just 4.3 inches.

Turkmen says in legal documents that Dr Soylemez promised him an increase of a least 1.1 inches in length and 1.1 inches in girth.

But, reports local media, the procedure carried out in January 2022 was, according to Turkmen, a disaster that left his penis smaller than ever and oozing blood.

A second op cured the bleeding but, says Turkmen, he was in such agony that he could barely walk for a month.

After lengthy talks about his shrunken manhood Turkmen’s patience snapped and he sued the surgeon for compensation, local media reported.

Man Sues Parking Lot After Randy Couple’s Romp Destroys His Mercedes

His writ demands compensation of TL 500,000 (GBP 13,300) for the allegedly botched procedure.

He claims the surgeon’s bungled procedure left him in agonising pain and on top of that disfigured his now even smaller penis with thick scars.

But Dr Soylemez denied the claim telling the court: “There is no fault in the procedure I performed.”

His defence team stated that due to the patient’s anatomical structure, there was a risk of the op ending with no elongation at all or less elongation than average.

The surgeon also claimed he never made any specific promises to the patient about length or girth and they deny it got any smaller.

His defence petition says Turkmen’s claim for moral compensation is excessive.

It claims: “The plaintiff received a big bill from another doctor. Demanding this fee as material compensation for his treatment, is groundless, aimed at unjust enrichment, and unacceptable.”

The case continues.