Health Care Complaints Commission of New South Wales v Dr Melvin Muralidharan [2010] NSWMT 1

New South Wales Medical Tribunal

CITATION : Health Care Complaints Commission of New South Wales v Dr Melvin Muralidharan [2010] NSWMT 1 TRIBUNAL: Medical Tribunal COMPLAINANT: Health Care Complaints Commission of New South Wales PARTIES : RESPONDENT: Dr Melvin Muralidharan FILE NUMBER(S) : 40003 of 2009; 40004 of 2009 CORAM: Backman J CATCHWORDS: LEGISLATION CITED: Medical Practice Act 1992 Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) CASES CITED: NSW Bar Association v Meakes [2006] NSWCA 340; Pillai v Messiter (No. 2) (1989) 16 NSWLR 197 DATES OF HEARING: 16/11/2009-18/11/2009 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 8 March 2010 COMPLAINANT: Health Care Complaints Commission LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr P Saidi, of counsel with Ms P Hook (HCCC) RESPONDENT: Dr M Muralidharan Mr P Sim (Philip Sim & Associates) ORDERS: Deregistration; not to apply for re-registration for 12 months from the date of the Decision.

JUDGMENT: - 2 - MEDICAL TRIBUNAL OF NEW SOUTH WALES

DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: Backman J MEMBERS: Dr D Child, AM Dr J Hely Dr M Gleeson OAM

8 March 2010

Matter No MT 40003 of 2009

Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Melvin Muralidharan

Complaint under the Medical Practice Act 1992

Matter No MT 40004 of 2009

Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Melvin Muralidharan

Complaint under the Medical Practice Act 1992

DECISION [2010] NSWMT 1

1 Before the Medical Tribunal are two complaints brought by the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC). Complaint No MT 40004 of 2009 will be considered first. It concerns events which preceded events the subject of Complaint No MT 40003 of 2009. 2 Complaint No MT 40004 of 2009 alleges that the respondent being a medical practitioner registered under the Medical Practice Act 1992 (the Act), "has been guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of section 36 of the Act in that he has engaged in conduct relating to the practice of medicine that is improper or unethical". 3 The particulars contained in the complaint rely on two separate incidents. They are: 1. Between 13 and 15 May 2005, without proper authorisation, the practitioner inappropriately took a locum appointment at Hornsby Hospital while suspended on full pay from Maitland Hospital. 2. On 24 October 2005, the practitioner made a false and/or misleading statement on his application for registration with the Queensland Medical Board in that he stated that he was not the subject of any preliminary investigations or action, in any State or Territory, that might lead to disciplinary proceedings. 4 Complaint No MT 40003 of 2009 is divided into two parts headed "Complaint One" and "Complaint Two". For ease of reference, the Tribunal will refer to these two complaints as Complaint 2(1) and Complaint 2(2). 5 Complaint 2(1) alleges that the respondent has been guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of s 36 of the Act and/or professional misconduct within the meaning of s 37 of the Act in that he has contravened conditions to which his registration was subject. 6 The complaint is particularised as follows: On 25 November 2005 the NSW Medical Board convened an Inquiry pursuant to section 66 of the Medical Practice Act 1992 to consider issues concerning the practitioner's clinical competency, ethical and professional behaviour and his communication and interpersonal skills. To protect the public, the Board delegates resolved to impose conditions on the practitioner with effect from 2 December 2005. These conditions included the requirements that the practitioner: 1. work only in supervised employment in a public hospital approved by the Medical Board; and 2. nominate a supervisor, to be approved by the Board, to monitor and review his clinical practice and compliance with conditions in accordance with Level 1 supervision of the Board's Guidelines; that is, the supervision is to be direct and on the premises in a public hospital setting. In August 2006, the practitioner commenced work at St George Hospital without first getting Board approval, in breach of the conditions imposed on his registration. On 3 April 2007 the Medical Board counselled the practitioner on the issue of breach of conditions and the responsibility of the practitioner to ensure strict compliance with the conditions on his registration. Following the counselling interview at the NSW Medical Board the practitioner: 1. Failed to seek the approval of the Medical Board before commencing his second term rotation as a senior Basic Surgical Trainee at Shoalhaven District Memorial Hospital (Shoalhaven Hospital) on 30 April 2007, thereby breaching a condition of his registration. 2. Failed to arrange appropriate Board-approved supervision before commencing his employment at Shoalhaven Hospital, thereby breaching a condition of his registration. 3. Worked at Shoalhaven Hospital from 30 April 2007 until 30 May 2007 without appropriate supervision that was direct and on the premises, thereby breaching a condition of his registration. 4. Failed to provide Shoalhaven Hospital with a copy of his NSW Medical Registration and/or disclose to Shoalhaven Hospital the conditions of his registration. 7 Complaint 2(2) alleges that the respondent has been guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of s 36 of the Act and/or professional misconduct within the meaning of s 37 of the Act in that: i. he has demonstrated that the knowledge, skill or judgment possessed, or care exercised, by him in the practice of medicine is significantly below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; ii. he has been guilty of improper or unethical conduct relating to the practice of medicine. 8 The particulars of Complaint 2(2) are set out as follows: 5. On at least one occasion during his secondment to Shoalhaven Hospital, which commenced on 30 April 2007, the practitioner, whilst on call: (i) left the hospital and could not be contacted; and/or (ii) left his pager at the hospital to be answered by other staff; and/or (iii) disregarded the responsibility of his role as Registrar to supervise junior medical staff by leaving the hospital. 6. During an interview with staff at Shoalhaven Hospital on 31 May 2007, the practitioner initially denied that he had conditions imposed on his registration. 7. During an interview with staff at Shoalhaven Hospital on 31 May 2007, the practitioner denied that it was his responsibility to inform Shoalhaven Hospital of the conditions on his registration. Background