Doctor struck off medical register after sexual misconduct with patient

A 55-YEAR-OLD South African doctor practising in Australia has been struck off the medical register after being found guilty of having a sexual relationship with a vulnerable 24-year-old patient suffering from mental health issues and alcoholism.

Dr Indren Moodley was also found to have dangerously prescribed high-risk medication and has been banned from practising medicine for four years

Moodley, who practised in Australia as a General Practitioner (GP) for 29 years, was subjected to a tribunal by The South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) after they had received a complaint about him (Moodley) from the Medical Board of Australia.

This was after the patient had notified authorities that Moodley had allegedly groomed and seduced her before giving her alcohol and having sex with her.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) released SACAT’s findings last month.

The complainant lodged the complaint with the Medical Board of Australia in October 2021. At the time, Moodley’s licence was suspended.

According to the tribunal’s findings, the woman had been a patient of Moodley’s since 2018. Between August and September 2021, she attended 11 consultations with Moodley and was treated for post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, borderline personality disorder, alcoholism, gastritis, abnormal liver function, abdominal pain, and vitamin D deficiency. 

The tribunal found that Moodley failed to maintain professional boundaries by engaging in an inappropriate and sexualised personal relationship with his patient between September 1, 2021, and September 12, 2021.

In that time, he exchanged 909 text messages with her, including numerous inappropriate, personal, non-clinical and sexual messages.

The messages included comments about her physical appearance (that he found her attractive), and discussed in personal detail the troubles with his own marriage.

He also asked her intimate questions regarding her relationships and childhood. Moodley discussed his own mental health issues and suicidal ideation, and his alcohol consumption with her. He also offered her alcohol in the context of inviting her over to his house.

He encouraged her to keep their relationship a secret.

“On September 8, 2021, the respondent (Moodley) invited the patient to his apartment via text message. She went to the apartment and the respondent, knowing and treating the patient for alcohol addiction, offered her alcohol, which she accepted. 

“The respondent provided red wine from a bottle and he drank coke. He then kissed her and engaged in sexual intercourse with her,” the findings stated.

In a statement provided to AHPRA, the patient said: “The relationship with Dr Moodley has had a big impact on me. I still have nightmares about it. I have started drinking more to help me sleep. I have been in and out of detox about five times. I still have difficulty sleeping.

“I have been to three different medical clinics as I will only see women doctors now. I became very upset when I had to have a medical procedure done on my cervix and found out it was being done by a male. 

“This has also impacted my trust in men as a whole as well as any professional in superior fields. At the time I did not realise how unwell I was mentally, physically and emotionally. However, after four months of sobriety and reflecting on these messages and statements, I am absolutely hurt and feel used and manipulated by a person who knew my physical and mental illnesses.”

The tribunal found that the seriousness of the impact on the patient by Moodley’s conduct ought to have been reasonably foreseeable to him in view of the depth of knowledge he had about her multiple vulnerabilities.

“The tribunal finds that Moodley has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct; therefore his registration is cancelled, he is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for four years.

“He is prohibited from providing any health service and from using the title ‘doctor’ or ‘Dr’ until such time as he obtains registration as a health practitioner. He is also ordered to pay the board’s cost of the proceedings,” the tribunal concluded.

In a written report provided to AHPRA by Professor Peta-Ann Teague, an expert in evaluating medical records and assessing practitioner performance, he said the patient was significantly mentally unwell and Moodley was aware of this. 

“As a doctor, he would also have been aware of the potential extreme emotional vulnerability of a patient with borderline personality disorder and a history of sexual abuse.

“Moodley took advantage of the patient's multiple vulnerabilities and abused the power imbalance between them for his personal sexual satisfaction. His conduct was seriously unethical, predatory and cruel. As her treating practitioner, he was well aware of her vulnerabilities. This is evident from the material before the tribunal. 

“We are satisfied that the respondent (Moodley) used the position of trust he had developed with the patient to exploit those vulnerabilities and to manipulate her, essentially in a calculated campaign to groom her to satisfy his own needs. 

"These vulnerabilities were serious and complex, including physical and mental health issues and significant emotional, sexual-abuse and alcohol-addiction issues arising from a traumatic background. There was a substantial age imbalance as the respondent was in his 50s at the time of this conduct and the patient was a young woman aged 24,” Teague said in his report.

SACAT found that the period of disqualification would be four years.

“This will be an aggregate period of over seven years, inclusive of the period of suspension. We consider that a strong and clear message should be sent to the respondent, to other practitioners and to the public that the respondent’s disgraceful conduct, his callous attitude to the patient’s well-being, his inadequate care and dangerous prescribing is to be condemned and that serious disciplinary consequences will be visited on any practitioner that engages in similar conduct.”

THE POST