Health Ombudsman v Duggirala

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was asked to consider whether the respondent, a registered medical practitioner, had behaved in a way that constituted professional misconduct. The Health Ombudsman referred the matter to the Tribunal pursuant to sections 103(1)(a) and 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld). The Tribunal was required to decide what sanctions should be imposed on the respondent if a finding of professional misconduct was made. The respondent did not resist a finding of professional misconduct but the parties differed as to the appropriate orders by way of sanction.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had behaved in a way that constituted professional misconduct. The Tribunal then considered what sanctions should be imposed. The respondent had a prior disciplinary history that included a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct for similar conduct. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent was not a fit and proper person to hold registration as a medical practitioner and was permanently unfit to practise. The Tribunal cancelled the respondent’s registration and disqualified the respondent from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner indefinitely. The Tribunal further ordered that the respondent be permanently prohibited from providing any health service involving direct contact with any female patient or client.

The Tribunal decided that the respondent had behaved in a way that constituted professional misconduct. The Tribunal found that the respondent had sexually assaulted a female patient in circumstances in contravention of the conditions on his registration. The Tribunal accepted that the respondent had a history of engaging in similar conduct. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent’s conduct, viewed in the context of his prior disciplinary history, so indelibly marked the respondent’s character as to compel the conclusion that he could not properly be regarded, now or in the future, as a fit and proper person to hold registration as a medical practitioner. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent’s professional misconduct was of such a nature that it was incompatible with the personal qualities essential to practise a caring profession. The Tribunal considered that affording the respondent the opportunity of re-registration would be likely to erode professional standards and diminish public confidence in the profession.

The Tribunal cancelled the respondent’s registration and disqualified the respondent from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner indefinitely. The Tribunal further ordered that the respondent be permanently prohibited from providing any health service involving direct contact with any female patient or client. The Tribunal concluded that such orders adequately met considerations of general deterrence, protection of the public and protection of the reputation of the profession. The Tribunal did not consider it necessary to make a further order by way of permanent prohibition of providing any health service in wider terms.