Charge

The Director of Proceedings charged that Dr Ravi Tamma (the Doctor) was guilty of professional misconduct.  The particulars of the charge were that:

The Doctor conducted a physical and/or intimate examination of a female patient when the examination was unnecessary and:

• without adequately explaining to the patient that she could have a chaperone present for the examination;
• without first obtaining informed consent from the patient;
• in a manner that did not allow the patient to undress or dress in private;
• he did not provide adequate covering of the patient during the examination;
• he inappropriately and unnecessarily touched the patient's genitals without the use of gloves;
• breached sexual boundaries in the doctor/patient relationship.

Following the examination, the Doctor made multiply retrospective alterations to the record of the consultations after he became aware that the patient was unhappy with the examination.

Finding

The Doctor admitted the charge and acknowledged and accepted the the particulars were sufficiently serious to warrant discipline.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the totality of the breaches in particular 1 amounted to a significant violation of professional standards. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Doctor deliberately and retrospectively falsified the consultation notes in order to justify an examination which he knew was inappropriate and therefore particular 2 was established.

The Tribunal was satisfied that each of the particulars separately amounted to malpractice and brought discredit to the profession and the charge of professional misconduct was made out.  The Tribunal noted its strong condemnation of the Doctor's serious misconduct.

Penalty

The Doctor was censured and suspended from practice for 18 months.

The following conditions were imposed on his practice for a period of three years on resumption of practice:

• He is required to have a chaperone present when seeing a female patient.
• He is to notify any employer that he must not undertake a consultation with a female patient without a chaperone.
• A notice informing patients that he requires a chaperone to be present when seeing a female patient must be in place at all times.
• His clinical notes will be subject to random audits by an agent of the Medical Council for non-comtemporaneous changes.  Any such changes will be sent immediately to the Medical Council's medical advisors for review.

The Tribunal recommended to the Medical Council that prior to the Doctor's return to practice he should undergo an assessment by the Sexual Misconduct Assessment Team and that he undergo a course relating to establishing and maintaining professional boundaries.

The Doctor was ordered to pay costs of $18,836.00.