Newsroom
A medical malpractice case was settled in court after a man with a simple urinating problem ended up by mistake without a prostate gland and is now suffering from sexual dysfunction.
A Nicosia District Court judge ruled on Friday in favour of a male patient, finding that his doctor and the health clinic failed to act with due diligence by not following procedure in their medical diagnosis.
The man sought medical advice in 2002 at a private clinic after experiencing problems with urination. Two years later, according to the case heard in court, the urological surgeon incorrectly diagnosed that the patient, aged 35 at the time, had prostate cancer.
Following the procedure, the man cannot ejaculate as a direct result of his prostate gland removal
The doctor further told the patient that he needed surgery immediately in order to avoid more serious problems and that there was no other way to overcome his medical condition.
According to the court ruling, the doctor also misled the patient about the possible side effects and complications post-surgery, citing the only negative effect he could expect to have would be loss of sperm.
The lawyers of the defendant argued that the clinic had a written statement signed by the patient, showing he had understood and consented to the medical procedure. But the attorney for the plaintiff said the consent had been obtained under false information that resulted in the patient not truly understanding the medical diagnosis, the proposed procedure, and the risk involved with dangerous complications.
Health records destroyed
The court also noted that the private clinic violated the patient’s rights to access his own medical records, citing that losing or destroying the documents was a direct violation of privacy and health patient laws.
The man is sexually incompetent following the removal of his prostate, a gland surrounding the neck of the bladder in male mammals that releases prostatic fluid. As a result, the man cannot ejaculate and is reportedly having depression, sleep apnea, exhaustion, and anhedonia (inability to feel pleasure) among other things.
The man had been deprived of one of the most fundamental pleasures in life, said the court, from the age of 35, before ruling in favour of the plaintiff in the amount of €70,000 for general damages, plus interest starting from September 2004, along with an extra €3000 as special damages plus interest to be calculated until the day of payment.
