Health Ombudsman v Chandra - [2020] QCAT 512

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Chandra [2020] QCAT 512

PARTIES: HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

RAJESHWAR CHANDRA

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR101-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

16 December 2020 (Ex Tempore)

HEARING DATE:

16 December 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member J Robertson

Assisted by:

Dr John Quinn
Ms Margaret Ridley

Professor Judy Searle

ORDERS:

1.       The Tribunal finds that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2.       The respondent is reprimanded.

3. The respondent’s registration is cancelled pursuant to section 107(3)(e) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013.

4. The respondent is prohibited from applying for registration as a health practitioner for a period of five years from today’s date pursuant to section 107(4)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013.

5. Pursuant to section 62(1)(a)(ii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013, the Tribunal sets aside the decision to take immediate registration action on 7 June 2018.

6.       There will be no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – where the respondent was convicted of 14 counts of supplying a dangerous drug and one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice – where the respondent plead guilty to all charges – whether the respondent’s conduct should warrant a cancellation of his registration – whether the respondent is not a fit and proper person to be a medical professional

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)
Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld)
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)

Medical Board of Australia v Chandra [2014] QCAT 271

Health Ombudsman v Field [2019] QCAT 243

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

C Lloyd of Office of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

These disciplinary proceedings were referred to the Tribunal by the applicant Director on 29 March 2019. At all relevant times, the respondent was a registered medical practitioner with the Medical Board of Australia (the Board); a health service provider within the meaning of section 8(a)(i) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (the Act); and subject to registration standards, Codes and Guidelines approved by the Board as to what constitutes appropriate professional practice and conduct for medical practitioners.
The referral contains one allegation relating to the conviction of the respondent upon his own plea of guilty to one count of attempting to pervert the court of justice and 14 counts of supplying dangerous drugs in the Brisbane District Court on 21 May 2018. The respondent was sentenced to two years imprisonment for attempting to pervert the course of justice, and 12 months imprisonment for each of the supply charges. All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, but the overall sentence of two years was suspended after the respondent had served three months of actual custody for an operational period of two years. As a matter of law, convictions were recorded for all offences.
The respondent has cooperated in these proceedings and he…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Health Ombudsman v Chandra and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] QCAT 512
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Ombudsman brought proceedings against Rajeshwar Chandra, a registered medical practitioner, alleging professional misconduct and seeking various sanctions. The Tribunal found that the respondent's criminal conduct, including his conviction for supplying dangerous drugs and attempting to pervert the course of justice, constituted professional misconduct under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. The Tribunal considered the respondent's previous history of professional misconduct, including inappropriate conduct towards a female patient, and concluded that his recent conduct demonstrated a defect in his character and that he was not a fit and proper person to hold registration. The Tribunal cancelled the respondent's registration and prohibited him from applying for registration as a health practitioner for five years. The Tribunal also set aside the decision to take immediate registration action on 7 June 2018, and made no order as to costs.

The key legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the respondent's conduct warranted the cancellation of his registration as a medical practitioner. The Tribunal considered various factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct, whether it was an isolated incident or indicative of a defect in character, and the respondent's insight into his conduct. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's conduct was serious and calculated, and demonstrated a defect in his character. The Tribunal found that the respondent was not a fit and proper person to be registered as a medical practitioner and that the cancellation of his registration was necessary to protect public confidence in the medical profession.

Orders