Raj and the woman had communicated by text and calls for many years and on that morning he took her blood pressure before they had consensual sex in his office.
Another woman had been a patient since 2013 and was seen by Raj 38 times over the next three years and prescribed her several medications over this time.
The tribunal suppressed the details of her medical history but she was concerned about her partner being unfaithful to her and she was seeing her doctor for issues stemming from this.
On February 16, 2016, Raj asked the woman - in hypothetical terms - what she would say if he offered her money in exchange for sex.
This prompted a disagreement between the pair and the woman raised her concerns with the receptionist at the clinic.
Two days later Raj wrote in his patient notes that the woman had appeared unhappy because he’d been inappropriate towards her.
However, he went on to write in her file that 18 months earlier she’d offered to sell herself to him for $500, which he “severely counselled against”.
“ … on 16th she mentioned she was engaged so I tested her frame of mind again asking supposing “I” as a unknown subject approached her, would she sell herself?” an excerpt of those notes reads.
“… I hugged her bye and she left - never have I approached her to have sex with me, in fact I told my nurse about her initial offer.”
Raj then went on to write that woman’s sister was “more prettier than her” but he was never inappropriate towards her.
In February last year the tribunal held a hearing into Raj’s conduct where he admitted to having sex with his patient at his clinic
Raj also admitted writing in the second woman’s file but denied that his conduct reached a threshold of malpractice or negligence.
The Professional Conduct Committee (PCC), which prosecuted Raj before the tribunal, said he had breached the trust he’d had between himself and his patients.
It said there was an inherent power imbalance, coupled with the second patient, whom he propositioned being incredibly vulnerable.
The PCC noted that this woman was 30 years younger than Raj, had a heightened reliance on him and was in clear financial and relationship stress.
By contrast, Raj’s lawyer, Harry Waalkens, said that there was little information about how the sexual intercourse with the first patient occurred as the woman did not give evidence to the tribunal.
Waalkens said that a suspension for Raj would hurt the community as there was a national shortage of general practitioners, especially those who spoke Hindi in an area like Manurewa.
“He is so well-liked by his patients and colleagues and he’s made an error of judgment and paid a harsh price for it,” Waalkens told NZME on behalf of his client today.
“It’s a sad case all around, a sad case for the community and for the doctor.”
Waalkens said that it was a clear rule for health practitioners to not have relationships with their patients but that it did happen.
“I’m not condoning it, but it’s one of these things that happens.”
In its penalty ruling, the tribunal said it was well established that crossing sexual boundaries with current patients fell well short of the standards expected by doctors.
“While the sexual intercourse was consensual, the conduct also brings discredit to the profession as it is a clear departure from what the public would expect from a member of the medical profession,” its ruling reads.
It described Raj’s notes in the second patient’s file as “foolish and inappropriate” and that overall he had difficulties maintaining sexual boundaries.
“Patients do not expect to hear or read the types of comments that were directed to [the woman] and her sister, and where they are made, the reputation of the profession as a whole suffers.”
The tribunal said it carefully considered the general practitioner shortage, especially those who speak Hindi, but it needed to apply its standards consistently.
Raj was suspended for 12 months and when he returns to practice he will have to be chaperoned by another registered health professional for all consultations with female patients until he has completed training ordered by the tribunal.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
