A panel of the Health Practitioner’s Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) convened on 7 March 2023 to hear a charge laid by a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) appointed by the Medical Council of New Zealand against Dr Mokesh Sunil Raj medical practitioner of Auckland. (the Practitioner).

Charge:

The charge alleged that the Doctor:

1. Had consensual sexual intercourse with [Ms U], a current patient; and/or
2. During a consultation, asked [Ms L] whether (in hypothetical terms), if he approached her, she would have sexual intercourse with him in exchange for money; and/or
3. In connection with [Ms L’s] complaint about the consultation, made inappropriate comments about [Ms L’s] sister's appearance in the record of the consultation.
4. The conduct alleged above amounts to professional misconduct in that, either separately or cumulatively, it:
   1. amounts to malpractice or negligence in relation to his scope of practice pursuant to section 100(1)(a) of the Act; and/or
   2. has brought or is likely to bring discredit to the profession, pursuant to section 100(1)(b) of the Act.

Background:

The Doctor graduated with a Diploma of Surgery and Medicine from the Fiji School of Medicine in 1983. He first registered with the Medical Council on 25 June 1992. He was registered with the Medical Council in the scope of general practice in September 2001. He has been working as a general practitioner and director at Hillpark Medical Centre in Manurewa since 2006. 

On 8 September 2017, the Medical Council was notified of a complaint made to the Police about the Doctor which related to an incident between his patient, Ms U and the Doctor, where they had consensual sexual intercourse in the Doctor’s clinic.  No criminal charges were laid against the Doctor in relation to the incident.

On 11 October 2017, the Medical Council was notified of concerns about the Doctor’s behaviour towards another patient Ms L, when, during a consultation, the Doctor asked the patient whether (expressed in hypothetical terms), she would have sexual intercourse with him in exchange for money. According to the Doctor, the patient had previously offered him sex in exchange for money, and he wanted to test if she was committed to her current partner.

After this consultation, the Doctor added an entry into the patient’s medical notes, including that the patient had misinterpreted what he was saying. He also noted that she has a much prettier sister, implying that if he were to make a genuine proposition to anyone, it would not be the patient.

Finding:

The Tribunal found that all the particulars of the charge were established, constituting malpractice, negligence and bringing discredit on the profession. The professional misconduct warranted disciplinary action.

Practitioners must observe professional boundaries in relation to patients, for example those set out in the Medical Council’s statement on Sexual Boundaries. In this case, the Doctor crossed ‘zero tolerance’ boundaries in relation to conduct outlined in the Charge.

Penalty:

The Tribunal ordered:

1. Censure
2. Suspension of the Doctor’s registration for a period of 12 months
3. Conditions on the Doctor’s practice.
4. Payment of $23,803.78 which amounts to 30% of the total costs of the hearing.

The Tribunal directed publication of the decision and a summary.

The practitioner appealed to the High Court against the Tribunal’s liability decision on particulars 2 and 3, the penalty of suspension on the declining of permanent name suppression.  The High Court dismissed the appeal [2004] NZHC1744 Andrew J.