Crunch looms for doctor in impotence caseLocal | Staff reporter 14 Aug 2019
A 30-year-old office worker, who hurt his manhood while at work, is taking legal action against a doctor for allegedly making him impotent.
He filed an application for a judicial review of the Medical Council's rejection of his complaint against the doctor.
High Court judge Anderson Chow Ka-ming yesterday heard the application filed by the man, referred to as K.
The man injured his lower part four years ago and went to the Prince of Wales Hospital for treatment. He later underwent emergency surgery as the doctor said his penis could have been broken.
However, it is suspected the doctor made a wrongful diagnosis as the penis had skin necrosis, deformation, loss of sensation and erectile dysfunction after the surgery.
K also has to insert a catheter into the bladder to drain urine.
His fertility and ability to perform sexually have been degraded, bringing on depression and other emotional problems.
K then filed a complaint with the council against the female doctor, but it was rejected.He first sought a judicial review last year.
His lawyer said K had questioned the doctor, saying she made a misdiagnosis and had not considered other treatment options.
For her part, the doctor is also said to have failed to explain the risks involved in the surgery as well as forged medical records.
The plaintiff said the council's preliminary investigation committee replied to him in March 2017, while the council did so last May.
During the investigation, a consultant doctor agreed that the doctor who suggested K undergo surgery was professionally negligent.
K questioned why the council ignored the consultant doctor's opinions without stating any reason for doing so.
A lawyer for the council said the investigation report is not a court document or transcript, so it is defensible for the person who wrote the report to leave out some facts.
Regarding K's claim that the doctor made a false statement in the medical record, the council's lawyer said the matter at hand involved a description of the wound after the injury. If the doctor's observation or description was wrong, it can only be considered as a misdiagnosis, not a false statement.
The judge adjourned the case for verdict.