- Furious banker now demands 500,000 liras, around £13,000, in compensation
A man who claims a poorly performed penis enlargement procedure left him with diminished virility is taking legal action against his doctor.
Ilter Turkmen, a wealthy banker from Tekirdag, Turkey, sought the help of Dr. Haluk Soylemez to enlarge his 11.5 cm long penis.
In legal documents, Turkmen claims that Dr. Soylemez assured him of a minimum increase of 3.5 cm in length and 2.5 cm in girth, according to local media.
But reports suggest the procedure carried out in January 2022 ended in disaster, leaving the Turkmen with a smaller – and scarred – member.
Instead of the expected increase of up to five centimeters, Turkmen claims the operation has reduced his manhood to just 10.5 centimeters.
Photo shows an illustrative image of Tekirdag, undated. Tekirdag is a city in Turkey, located on the northern coast of the Sea of Marmara
The irate banker is now demanding 500,000 liras – around £13,000 – in compensation.
Doctors performed a second procedure to address the bleeding and limit the damage after the attempt to extend Turkmen's manhood.
But the Turkmen claims he continues to suffer excruciating pain as a result of the alleged botched operation, which left him unable to walk for a month.
In his legal filing, Turkmen claims that the botched surgery not only caused severe pain, but also left his already reduced penis deformed with noticeable scarring.
Dr. However, Soylemez refuted Turkmen's claims, claiming in court: “There is no error in the procedure I performed.”
His defense team argues that due to the patient's anatomical structure, there was a risk that the surgery would result in no lengthening, or less lengthening than average.
Dr. Soylemez also denied making any specific commitments to the patient regarding length or girth, and disputed claims that the size of the Turkmen penis decreased after surgery.
The defense argues that the Turkmen demand for damages is excessive and characterizes it as an attempt at unjust enrichment.
The file states: 'Plaintiff received a large bill from another doctor. Demanding this compensation as material compensation for his treatment is unfounded, aimed at unjust enrichment and unacceptable.'
The case is still ongoing.