A regional daily has been rapped by the press watchdog after wrongly reporting that a doctor was struck off for suggesting a patient pay for “designer vagina” surgery with sex.

The Manchester Evening News claimed Dr Xavier Mmono had been struck from the medical register for suggesting that a patient pay for the surgery via a “friends with benefits” arrangement.

But Dr Mmono had in fact received the punishment for conducting intimate examinations without a chaperone, not for suggesting sex as payment for treatment.

The story, headlined “Doctor struck off for asking patient to be ‘friend with benefits”, was written by a freelance reporter and was based on two online tribunal reports from 2016 and 2018, as well as a later court judgement where Dr Mmono had been struck off.

Despite accepting the doctor was not struck off for suggesting “sex with benefits” to a patient in lieu of payment, the MEN denied the claim represented a significant inaccuracy in the wider context of his behaviour.

It reported that the judge in the court hearing had described the complainant as “persistently dishonest” and had demonstrated “a blatant disregard for the truth.”

However, IPSO found the headline and intro of the January 2019 story represented a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information given the correct information was freely available online.

The watchdog has now ordered the MEN to publish a 475-word adjudication on the case.

Dr Mmono complained to IPSO under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice about the story, which was also published online with the headline “Gynaecologist who suggested ‘designer vagina’ patient become ‘friends with benefits’ rather than pay for surgery struck off.”

It also reported that the doctor had been suspended for four months for inappropriate conduct relating to texts he sent to a patient following the 2016 tribunal, that he was suspended again in 2018 for 12 months after carrying out intimate examinations without a chaperone present, and that a judge had now struck him from the medical register after agreeing with the General Medical Council that the second punishment was too lenient.

Dr Mmono told IPSO he was not struck off the medical register for suggesting to a patient that she pay for surgery with a “friends with benefits” arrangement, nor was this the reason for his previous suspensions.

He said this allegation had never been heard or proven in the first tribunal either, adding that although he was suspended for sending texts to a patient – which he denied were inappropriate – the tribunal did not establish that they showed that he planned to engage in a sexual relationship with the patient at that time.

In response, the MEN said the freelance reporter had not been present at proceedings and accepted the “friends with benefits” claim had not been found by any previous tribunal, but added that at the 2016 hearing it had been found proved that the texts sent to the patient were inappropriate and sexually motivated.

On receipt of the complaint, the MEN offered to publish a correction and amend the online article’s headline and opening sentence to read: “Gynaecologist struck off after inappropriate conduct with patient” and “A doctor who sent suggestive texts to a patient has been struck off” respectively.

Dr Mmono had declined these corrections as he disputed that he had been struck off for “inappropriate conduct”, adding the MEN should have apologised to him and that its offers were not sufficiently prominent.

IPSO found the claim Dr Mmono had suggested sex in lieu of payment for medical treatment had not formed part of proceedings, nor was it the reason why he had been struck off, and was a serious claim about his professional conduct which represented a significant escalation as to the charges he faced and were found proved.

This claim was intrinsic to the overall article, and IPSO was also concerned that the inaccuracy appeared despite the accurate position being readily available and in the public domain via the tribunal and court documents the reporter consulted.

It decided the appropriate remedy was the publication of an adjudication. The complaint was upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.