Medical Practice Act 1992 re Dr Badal CHATTERJEE

New South Wales

Medical Tribunal

CITATION:	Medical Practice Act 1992 re Dr Badal CHATTERJEE [2005] NSWMT 18
TRIBUNAL:	Medical Tribunal
PARTIES:	Health Care Complaints Commission and Dr Badal CHATTERJEE
FILE NUMBER(S):	40019 of 2004
CORAM:	Sidis, DCJ - Glover, Prof W - Sutton, Dr V - Napier, Ms L
CATCHWORDS:	Sexual misconduct
LEGISLATION CITED:	Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW) - ss 36 - 37
CASES CITED:	Richter v Walton NSWCA U/R 15.7.93; HCCC v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630; Bannister v Walton (1993) 30 NSWLR 699; Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
DATES OF HEARING:	20 21 22 April 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 May 2005
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	Counsel K L Eastman Solicitor Health Care Complaints Commission Counsel P Byrne SC - E H Pike Solicitor - United Medical Protection
ORDERS:	1 The Tribunal finds the Complaint proved; 2 The Tribunal finds the practitioner guilty of professional misconduct; 3 The practitioner is severely reprimanded; 4 The practitioner is fined the sum of $13,750.00; 5 The practitioner is to pay the Commission’s costs of the proceedings before the Tribunal; 6 The Tribunal publishes its reasons

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

DETERMINATION

Pursuant to Clause 6 of Schedule 2 to the Medical Practice Act 1992 the Tribunal has made a Non Publication Order in respect of Patient A, her husband and any other witness, the naming of whom might lead to the identification of Patient A.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

1 Pursuant to the Medical Practice Act 1992 (the Act), the Tribunal is enquiring into a Complaint[1] of the Commissioner, Health Care Complaints Commission (the Commission), concerning the professional conduct of Dr Badal Chatterjee.

2 The Commission complained that the practitioner, being a medical practitioner registered under the Act, has been guilty of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of ss 36 and 37 of the Act in that he demonstrated a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care in the practice of medicine.

3 Particulars set out in the Complaint were as follows:

1. On 9 June 2000 during a professional consultation with a female patient, Patient A, at his surgery the practitioner:

(a) offered and gave Patient A a massage without clinical justification;
(b) embraced or cuddled Patient A;
(c) touched Patient A's breast beneath her clothing;
(d) touched Patient A's buttocks beneath her clothing.

Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct

4 The Complaint falls to be determined under Section 36 (1) (a) of the Act which, at the time of the conduct complained of, provided:

Meaning of 'unsatisfactory professional conduct '

(1) For the purposes of this Act, unsatisfactory professional conduct of a registered medical practitioner includes each of the following:

(a) Lack of skill etc

Any conduct that demonstrates a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care, by the practitioner in the practice of medicine.

...

(m) Other improper or unethical conduct

Any other improper or unethical conduct relating to the practice or purported practice of medicine.

Professional Misconduct

5 Section 37 of the Act defines professional…