Legal Research
Cases
Re Dr Parajuli

Re Dr Parajuli

Case [2010] NSWMT 3 13 April 2010

Professional Misconduct

Discipline

Sexual Relations with Patient

Medical Law

Ethics & Legal Profession

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales

Medical Tribunal

CITATION: Re Dr Parajuli [2010] NSWMT 3

TRIBUNAL: Medical Tribunal

PARTIES: Health Care Complaints Commission
Dr Naresh Sharma Parajuli

FILE NUMBER(S): 40023 of 2009

CORAM: Murrell, SC DCJ - Ilbery, Dr K - Yeo, Dr G - Gleeson, Dr M

CATCHWORDS: Sexual relations with patient - Professional misconduct – Appropriate disposition of established complaint

LEGISLATION CITED: Medical Practice Act 1992

CASES CITED: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336;
HCCC v Karalasingham [2007] NSWCA 267 ;
HCCC v Dr Cheng NSWMT [2005] 25;
Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630;
Law Society of NSW v Foreman (1994) 34 NSWLR 408

DATES OF HEARING: 12 April 2010

EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE : 13 April 2010

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr Farmer of Counsel for the Complainant
Mr Griffin of Counsel for the Respondent

ORDERS:

JUDGMENT:

The Complaint

1 The Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) complains that Dr Naresh Sharma Parajuli (the practitioner) has been guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and/or professional misconduct in that he has demonstrated judgement or care in the practice of medicine that is significantly below the standard reasonably expected and /or has engaged in other improper or unethical conduct contrary to s 36 (1) (a) and/or (m) of the Medical Practice Act 1992.

2 The practitioner admits the conduct particularised in the complaint.

(1) Between about 9 May 2007 and 22 June 2007, while patient A was a patient of the practitioner, he engaged in inappropriate discussion with her.

(2) On 24 May 2007, he made arrangements to meet the patient at her home for the purpose of having sexual contact with her.

(3) On 25 May 2007, he visited the patient at her home and engaged in sexual intercourse with her.

3 The practitioner concedes that, by his conduct on 24 May and on 25 May, he engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct that amounts to professional misconduct because it is sufficiently serious to justify suspension or deregistration: s 37. The practitioner concedes that the inappropriate discussions between 9 May and 22 June were part of a course of conduct that includes the conduct on 24 May and 25 May. He admits that the course of conduct amounts to professional misconduct.

4 The contentious issue is the appropriate disposition of the complaint.

The Conduct

5 The practitioner undertook medical training in India and then worked for nine years as a general medical officer and district medical officer in Bhutan. In 2001 he migrated to Australia on a student scholarship. In 2006 he became a Fellow of the Royal Australia College of General Practitioners. Having worked for two years for the National Prescribing Service, and for one year as the Manager Clinical Quality for a hospital, in late 2004 he commenced working for a group general practice in a city in regional New South Wales.

6 Between late 2005 and mid 2006, the patient consulted the practitioner on four occasions. In July 2006, the practitioner made a computer entry instructing administrative…

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.

Continue reading Re Dr Parajuli

Details

AGLC: Re Dr Parajuli [2010] NSWMT 3
Case: [2010] NSWMT 3
Decision Date: 13 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Dr Parajuli, the respondent was a medical practitioner who was found to have engaged in sexual relations with a patient. The complaint was made to the Health Care Complaints Commission, which was the relevant disciplinary body in this instance. The case was heard by the Health Care Complaints Commission's Adjudication Panel, and ultimately, the matter was referred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for a decision on the appropriate disposition of the established complaint of professional misconduct.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed on Dr Parajuli for his professional misconduct. The court considered the nature and gravity of the misconduct, the impact on the patient and the medical profession, as well as relevant precedents and guidelines. The court also had to take into account any mitigating factors that may have been present in this case.

The court found that the misconduct was of a serious nature, as it involved a breach of trust and professional boundaries, and had a significant impact on the patient. The court noted that such behaviour was not only unacceptable but also posed a serious risk to the integrity of the medical profession. In determining the appropriate penalty, the court considered the need to protect the public, deter similar conduct, and uphold the reputation of the medical profession. Ultimately, the court found that the appropriate disposition was to impose a suspension of Dr Parajuli's registration as a medical practitioner for a period of 12 months. This decision was based on the court's consideration of all the relevant factors, including the gravity of the misconduct, the impact on the patient and the profession, and the need for an appropriate penalty that would serve the interests of justice.

Orders