Devina Singh v Health Care Complaints Commission [2025] NSWCATOD 97;

1. The Applicant first came to the attention of the Medical Council (the "Council") in 2009 after she had been involuntarily admitted under the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW). The Applicant was given a provisional diagnosis of bipolar disorder (manic episode) and was actively and voluntarily engaging in treatment.
2. The Applicant underwent a Council Appointed Psychiatric (CAP) assessment on 8 July 2009. The doctor recommended that the Applicant enter the Council's Impaired Registrants Program.
3. The Applicant did enter that Program and continued to practise, subject to conditions. She successfully exited the Program in around 2014.
4. Between May and September 2016, several complaints were made against the Applicant. The Applicant re-engaged with the Council and agreed to sign a chronic relapsing illness authority, which allowed her treating practitioners to contact the Council if she was non-compliant with treatment against advice or if there was any concern regarding her mental state.
5. In 2020 the Council received a complaint about the Applicant's conduct and it became concerned that the Applicant may be impaired [as defined in the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) (the "National Law")]. It made an appointment for the Applicant to be assessed by a psychiatrist. The Applicant did not attend the appointment.
6. The Council held a s 150 inquiry on 29 January 2021. The Applicant did not attend. Based on the evidence that the Applicant was impaired, the seriousness of the 2020 complaint and the doctor's failure to engage with the Council, they decided the Applicant represented a significant risk to the health and safety of the public and suspended the Applicant's registration.
7. As a non-registered practitioner, the Applicant was subject to the Code of Conduct for unregistered health practitioners.
8. After 29 January 2021 the HCCC received complaints about the Applicant practising as a psychiatrist even though her registration had been suspended.
9. The HCCC, during the investigation of a complaint, may make an IPO in certain circumstances: s 41AA of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW) ("HCC Act").
10. The HCCC first imposed an IPO on the Applicant on 10 November 2022. The Order provided that the Applicant must not under any circumstances provide, or cause to be provided, any health services, either in paid employment or voluntarily, to any member of the public, including, but not limited to, providing psychosocial recovery and psychoneurological services. The IPO remained in force for eight weeks.
11. Subsequently another 18 IPOs have been imposed on the Applicant, each lasting 8 weeks, the effect of which is that the IPO has continued since 10 November 2022. Each IPO was based on findings of breaches of the same or similar legal provisions and each of them was made in the same terms as the first Order, although additional complaints about the conduct of the Applicant were received up until April 2023.
12. In 2023 the HCCC arranged another CAP assessment but the Applicant said "I still will not participate in other people's expert psychiatric opinions about my trauma..." and "It is my autonomous human right to refuse further expert opinions by CA psychiatrist and AHPRA registered psychiatrists".
13. The Commission then requested an expert report from a psychiatrist, Dr Fukui based on a review of the documentation. Her report is dated 8 September 2024.
14. In March 2025, the Applicant was asked whether she would be willing to re­engage with the Council and their Health Pathway Program. She did not respond.
15. In May 2025, the HCCC again provided the Applicant with the opportunity to engage in a CAP assessment. She refused and said any such assessment could not undo what had already occurred.
16. The most recent IPO was made on 4 June 2025 and expires on 30 July 2025. It is this last Order which is the subject of this Application for Review.

1. The HCCC is empowered to issue an IPO on a non-registered health practitioner pursuant to s 41AA of the HCC Act:

41AA Interim prohibition orders

(1) The Commission may, during any investigation of a complaint against a non-registered health practitioner, make an interim prohibition order in respect of the non-registered health practitioner.

(2) The Commission may make an interim prohibition order only if-

(a) it has a reasonable belief that the health practitioner has breached a code of conduct for non-registered health practitioners, and

(b) it is of the opinion that-

(i) the health practitioner poses a serious risk to the health or safety of members of the public, and

(ii) the making of an interim prohibition order is necessary to protect the health or safety of members of the public.

(3) An interim prohibition order may do one or both of the following-

(a) prohibit the health practitioner from providing health services or specified health services,

(b) place such conditions as the Commission thinks appropriate on the provision of health services or specified health services by the health practitioner.

(4) An interim prohibition order remains in force for a period of 8 weeks or such shorter period as may be specified in the order.

(5) The Commission must notify the health practitioner of its decision to make an interim prohibition order and provide the health practitioner with a written statement of the decision that sets out the grounds on which the decision was made as soon as practicable after the decision is made.

(6) In this section, code of conduct for non-registered health practitioners means a code of conduct prescribed by regulations under section 100(1)(a) or (b) of the Public Health Act 2010.

1. In relation to s 41AA (2), the Codes of Conduct relevant to this Inquiry are in Schedule 3 to the Public Health Regulation 2012 (the "2012 Code") for conduct up to 31 August 2022 and Schedule 3 of the Public Health Regulation 2022 for conduct from 1 September 2022 (the "2022 Code").

3 HEALTH PRACTITIONERS TO PROVIDE SERVICES IN SAFE AND ETHICAL MANNER

A health practitioner must provide health services in a safe and ethical manner.

9 HEALTH PRACTITIONERS NOT TO PRACTISE WITH CERTAIN PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITIONS

A health practitioner must not practise while suffering from a physical or mental impairment, disability, condition or disorder (including an addiction to alcohol or a drug, whether or not prescribed) that detrimentally affects, or is likely to detrimentally affect, his or her ability to practise or that places clients at risk of harm.

1 HEALTH SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED IN SAFE AND ETHICAL WAY

(1) A health practitioner must provide health services in a safe and ethical way.

7 HEALTH PRACTITIONERS NOT TO PRACTISE WITH CERTAIN PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITIONS

A health practitioner must not practise while suffering from a physical or mental impairment, disability, condition or disorder, including an addiction to alcohol or a drug, whether or not prescribed, that-

(a) detrimentally affects, or is likely to detrimentally affect, the practitioner's ability to practise, or

1. A decision to impose an IPO is reviewable by this Tribunal: s 41C of the HCC Act.
2. The Tribunal is empowered to affirm, vary or set aside the HCCC's decision to issue the IPO: s 63(3) of the ADR Act.

1. In determining an application for an administrative review, the Tribunal is to decide what is the correct and preferable decision having regard to the material then before it, including any relevant factual material and any applicable written or unwritten law: s 63(1) of the ADR Act.
2. In Youssef v NSW Legal Services Commissioner [2020] NSWCATOD 85, the Tribunal considered the nature of a review under s 63 of the ADR Act. At [21] the Tribunal held

... We are not concerned to examine whether there was challengeable error in the process or reasoning by the Commissioner, although parts of the grounds of the application as lodged in the Tribunal appear to proceed on this basis. As the NSW Court of Appeal said in Donaghy v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2013] NSWCA 154, the Tribunal is to "decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material before it" ... The nature of that review does not require that the Tribunal address whether the relevant administrator's decision involved error or was manifestly unsupportable....

What findings did the HCCC rely on to make the IPO

(1) The Applicant had breached Clauses 3 (1) and 9 of the 2012 Code as she had not provided health services in a safe and ethical manner and was suffering from a mental impairment that detrimentally affected, or was likely to detrimentally affect, her ability to practise, or placed clients at risk of harm.

(2) The Applicant had breached Clauses 1 (1) and 7 of the 2022 Code as she had not provided health services in a safe and ethical manner and was suffering from a mental impairment that detrimentally affected, or was likely to detrimentally affect, her ability to practise, or placed clients at risk of harm.

(3) The Applicant posed a serious risk to the health or safety of members of the public (S 41AA(2)(b)(i) of the HCC Act).

(4) The making of an IPO against the Applicant was necessary to protect the health or safety of members of the public (S 41AA(2)(b)(ii) of the HCC Act).

After her registration was suspended on 29 January 2021 did the Applicant provide a health service?

1. Section 41AA and the Codes relate to the provision of a health service.
2. It is not denied by the Applicant that, after her registration had been suspended, she had undertaken some work. The HCCC formed the view that the work she was doing was providing a health service as defined in the HCC. The Applicant maintains that she was not providing a health service.
3. Relevantly for this Inquiry, "health service" is defined in s 4 of the HCC Act:

"health service" includes the following services, whether provided as public or private services--

...

(c) mental health services

...

(h) welfare services necessary to implement any (mental health) services.

1. The material relevant to whether the Applicant was providing a health service includes the following:

(1) A complaint on 4 August 2022 which alleged the Applicant had been practising as a psychiatrist while her registration was suspended. She had reportedly claimed she had only returned to psychiatry "last month" due to a diagnosis of brain cancer "eight years ago". She said she was unable to prescribe medication and "will ask her GP friends to prescribe".

(2) Another three complaints between 21 October 2022 and 22 March 2023, alleging the Applicant was practising as a health practitioner whilst suspended and advertising various services including psychosocial recovery and psychoneurological services.

(3) A report dated 2 November 2022 prepared by the Applicant arising out of her examination of a child. The report describes the Applicant's qualifications as MBBS (India); FRANZCP; Masters IN Disorders of Self, Psychosocial Recovery Coach. The document is in the format of a report prepared by a doctor - it sets out the history obtained from the father outlining the behaviour of the child and the results of a mental state examination of the child using the headings "Appearance": "Engagement": "Mood": "Affect": "Speech": "Thoughts": "Perception": "Reality Testing": "Cognition": "Insight" and "Daily Living". The next section is headed "DIAGNOSIS (DSM-V-TR) Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD)" and, at the end of the report, the Applicant made medication recommendations.

(4) The Applicant's first website which was in use from about 2022 - 2023 advertised the professional services offered by "Dr Devina Singh, Psychiatrist Parramatta NSW" who provided "Level 3 Specialist Support Co­ordination" and advertised her "non-clinical mental health consultation" services. Elsewhere on the site her areas of expertise included "General Psychiatry", "Forensic Mental Health" and "Psychotherapy Skills".

(5) The website stated that the Applicant's clients were between the ages of 17 and 70 and her role included "empower[ing] them to negotiate their challenging circumstances by supporting their psychosocial recovery choices ... they experience various mental health difficulties and/or other disabilities with co-morbid depression and anxiety".

(6) It also stated:

"The first interview session is usually 50 minutes long. Information is gathered regarding current mental health symptoms, psychosocial functioning, and developmental trajectory since birth to elucidate why is this person seeking psychiatric care now"... "The goal of psychiatric recovery from mental impairments is to achieve personal autonomy and meaningful living with infinite choices available to an individual"... "Psychodynamic psychotherapy and psychiatric recovery assist achievement of these goals".

(7) The Applicant's second website was current at the time the decision was made. The Applicant describes herself as "Psychiatrist Deregistered" and "Dr Devina Singh" and under the heading "Reclaiming Recovery : Lived knowledge as Expertise", she includes "Drawing on over two Decades of Professional Experience, my work is grounded in medical training (MBBS) a fellowship in psychiatry (FRANZCP) and specialised practice in forensic psychiatry and complex trauma. I am formally trained in psychodynamic psychotherapy, including the conversation Model, Masterson's Disorder of the Self, and the application of Pia Me/lady's trauma frameworks. These qualifications-combined with my lived experience from the basic of my distinct, trauma-informed self-psychotherapy model".

In the Applicant's written submissions, in relation to this website, she says:

To whomever reviewed my website - thank you. I was unaware that Al had altered the content in ways I could not easily verify. I have visual impairments, and I am not always able to read or edit it independently. It remains a work in progress, sharing my lived experience with mental health in Australia and what has helped me - even today - where 'mind over matter' is, at times, all I have left to continue functioning.

(8) In addition to her websites, the Applicant maintained an online presence through her social media accounts. On her Facebook site she describes herself as having started a new job in April 2023 as a mental health specialist, a consultant at Dr Devina Singh, having studied RANZCP and refers to #drdenasingh. On her LinkedIn page, as at 27 February 2025, she describes herself as Dr Devina Singh and as a deregistered Australian psychiatrist who offers support for people to develop their true self.

(9) A complaint made by a member of the public about the Applicant advertising herself as a Specialist Support Coordinator under the NDIS and joining mental health NDIS provider groups on social media.

(10) The Applicant became a registered provider with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) on 19 October 2022. Her registration was revoked on 5 August 2024. The Applicant was paid for providing health services, including "psychosocial recovery coaching".

1. The Applicant does not dispute the contents of these documents.
2. Firstly the Applicant says Medicare provides access to subsidised medical care, while the NDIS delivers individualised support for people with permanent disabilities, including psychosocial disability. Neither scheme, she says, is regulated by NSW public health regulations, which focus on infection control, notifiable diseases, and environmental health risks. Therefore, the application of a public health regulatory instrument such as the IPO in this context is legally misplaced, and the order lacks jurisdictional validity when applied to her work-role in federally funded support systems such as the NDIS.
3. The Applicant did not provide any further analysis supporting this submission. I do not accept that the HCC Act and the National Law do not apply to health services provided through Medicare and/or NDIS.
4. Secondly, the Applicant says she does not provide a health service. She engages in Psychosocial Recovery Coaching which is a non-clinical, capacity-building support designed for individuals with psychosocial disability. The function of a recovery coach is to assist people to increase their independence, decision-making skills, and their participation in community life and to develop a Recovery Plan based on the person's needs, strengths, and goals, to co-ordinate formal and informal supports; and provide continuity and consistency through sustained engagement. The role is not clinical, does not involve diagnosis, treatment, medication, or psychological therapy, and is often performed by individuals with lived experience, consistent with the principles of peer work and person-centred care.

I am satisfied that the Applicant's reference to her "lived experience" includes using her training and experience as a psychiatrist in her coaching work. In her written submissions she has said:

The truth is that I cannot, legally or otherwise, be restricted from practising or embodying who I have now become. Whether you it is labelled mental health or health service or anything else - I cannot stop using my mind-body connection [mental health] to live in this dysfunctional physical body to survive. Nor will I enable dysfunctional behaviours in others, whether online, in person, or in communication with government agencies.

1. It may be that the Applicant has performed some functions which do not fall with the definition of health services. However I am satisfied that there is persuasive evidence of the Applicant having provided mental health services and welfare services necessary to implement mental health services since her registration was suspended.

1. Impairment is defined in s 5 of the National Law:

impairment, in relation to a person, means the person has a physical or mental impairment, disability, condition or disorder (including substance abuse or dependence) that detrimentally affects or is likely to detrimentally affect-

(a) for a registered health practitioner or an applicant for registration in a health profession, the person's capacity to practise the profession;

1. The material relevant to impairment includes the following:

(1) The first complaint (which led to the s 150 hearing) related to an attendance on the Applicant on 19 May 2020. The patient described the Applicant as rude. The Applicant told the patient about a client who tried taking her life but didn't succeed and ended up in a wheelchair. The Applicant said that sometimes when people try to take their life it doesn't work, if they really want to die they should do it properly. This triggered the patient, who said she completely shut down and couldn't talk anymore so the appointment finished. Outside the clinic she told her support person that the appointment had made her so low that she just wanted to be dead. She lay in the middle of the road. She then went into a supermarket and took a knife and sliced her arm to try to stop the emotions she was experiencing.

The experienced support person who had attended the appointment with the patient described the Applicant as rude, harsh, insensitive, lacking empathy, straightforward and not open to listening to the patient's feelings. She could see how traumatic the experience was for the patient. She said that when the patient lay on the road multiple cars beeped and stopped. She dragged the patient off the road. After the patient cut herself, the patient was taken to hospital. She had emergency surgery followed by intense physiotherapy after which she needed surgery again. In addition the patient has refused to see another psychiatrist because she was so traumatised by her consultation with the Applicant.

On her first website the Applicant said about this complaint:

Socially, I am isolated, ostracized with unemployability as the public needs to be protected from me is the expert opinion. This occurred because I had the courage to tell a chronic self-harming person, they have to learn to keep themselves safe first. I was blamed that that person chose to cope with emotional distress in the preferred way.

In her written submissions to this Inquiry she added:

There also appears to be an unspoken expectation that I soften my words to preserve others' comfort- that I avoid calling a spade a spade, simply because the reality I am naming is inconvenient or confronting. I reject that expectation. The truth I speak is not a risk; it is a refusal to comply with a system that punishes honesty while protecting denial and keeps dysfunction intact.

(2) In a complaint made on 3 April 2023, the complainant said the Applicant "is not a stable person and regularly attacks or engages in harassment/arguments online with others".

1. In his report dated 8 September 2024 Dr Fukui's opinion was that:

(1) The Applicant suffers from a psychiatric disorder with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.

(2) The Applicant's condition is an impairment as defined in s 5 of the National Law because it detrimentally affects her ability to practise or provide health services in the following ways. The Applicant has suffered from manic episodes which have required psychiatric admissions including involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act. There is also evidence that she has suffered from depressed mood for which she has been prescribed anti-depressant medications. It is documented that during her episodes of mania she suffered from psychotic symptoms and disinhibited behaviour. Since 2016 there have been complaints related to the Applicant's professional conduct including her unprofessional communication style with rude and inappropriate comments, inappropriate disclosure of patient information, and delayed or failure to provide reports for assessments conducted. These instances have resulted in distress and harm to the patients involved as evidenced in the complaints received by the Commission.

I accept this opinion and am satisfied that the Applicant's impairment detrimentally affects or is likely to detrimentally affect her ability to practise.

(3) The Applicant's impairment from her psychiatric disorder places clients at risk of harm. Dr Fukui later added that the Applicant's impairment is a barrier to her ability to appropriately apply her knowledge and skills in practising her profession safely.

I accept these opinions and find that the Applicant poses a serious risk to the health and safety of members of the public. This is illustrated by the Applicant's conduct leading to the first complaint.

(4) The Applicant ceased medication and psychiatric care in 2016 (although anti-depressants were commenced in 2021) and this coincided with an increase in the number of complaints made against her. The lack of active oversight, through the form of treatment conditions on the Applicant's registration, has led to a deterioration in the Applicant's mental state with further impairment.

I accept this opinion which means that it is likely that, if left untreated, the impairment and the associated consequences will worsen over time.

(5) The Applicant lacks mental capacity to practice due to poor insight and judgment into her psychiatric condition and associated impairment. I am satisfied that the Applicant lacks insight into her impairments and that this is illustrated by the Applicant's subsequent reflections on her conduct which led to the first complaint.

(6) Dr Fukui finds the Applicant is not competent to practice medicine according to s 139 of the National Law. Section 139 provides:

139 A person is competent to practise a health profession only if the person-

(a) has sufficient physical capacity, mental capacity, knowledge and skill to practise the profession; and

(b) has sufficient communication skills for the practice of the profession, including an adequate command of the English language.

1. The Applicant is deeply concerned at the assumption that she poses an ongoing risk to the Australian public solely because of a past mental health diagnosis and a recent expert opinion from a psychiatrist who had not undertaken an updated, independent psychiatric evaluation or physical health assessment. I am satisfied that the Applicant's summary of the available evidence on which these conclusions were reached is incomplete.
2. The Applicant strongly disputes the broad and unsupported application of the term "impairment". She says it fails to distinguish between mental illness, psychosocial disability, and actual risk of harm to others. From 2005 to 2018, she had regularly engaged with psychiatrists, met every IRP requirement, and taken full responsibility for managing her health and functioning. She has insight and has demonstrated it consistently. She is still alive despite overwhelming odds - this fact alone reflects her commitment to self-care and survival. I do not find this submission of any assistance in the matters to be determined by me. The term "impairment" is defined. The Applicant's failure to engage with the regulatory authorities more recently is evidence of lack of insight, rather than insight.
3. In her written submissions, the Applicant says that since 2005, she has suffered from undiagnosed and untreated chronic health conditions. Her deregistration occurred because she her function was impaired by a lack of adequate medical support for her physical impairments and psychosocial stressors, not from an unmanaged mental illness. What has been labelled "psychiatric impairment" is a mischaracterisation of physical decline and systemic neglect. The submission continues:

To be honest, currently, I do not know what my impairments or diagnosis actually are. Nor do I know how to function in any of my basic activities of daily living - both instrumental and functional. I can't even swallow, walk, talk, or toilet myself independently. I am required to attend an in-person hearing. I will be there with my support worker, elbow walker, tattoos that help identify and orient where my body parts are, and spectacles that do not sit on my nose due to the bony structure of my face. I still do not know what to wear to be formally accepted into the courtroom - nothing fits me - from head to toe.

In standard mental health practice, one of the fundamental principles is: A mental illness should not be diagnosed unless other possible physical or organic causes of the behaviour or symptoms have been thoroughly excluded.

How can HCCC justify requesting a CAP appointment when basic diagnostic principles require exclusion of physical conditions before diagnosing a primary psychiatric disorder? HCCC has collected hundreds of pages of paperwork. Has an expert opinion been sought for this basic principle of differential diagnosis - (even if the intention is to prove that I am indeed mentally ill and lying?).

1. The Applicant's failure to engage with the regulatory authorities makes it impossible to ascertain the contribution of any physical disability to her impairment.
2. The Applicant also believes that the psychiatrists used by the regulatory authorities are unqualified to decide whether she is impaired. She says:

Psychiatrists in Australia are predominantly trained to treat those within the first standard deviation of what is considered "normal." This leaves those outside that statistical norm marginalised, misunderstood, and misdiagnosed.

1. The Applicant says that the ongoing IPOs are stigmatising and discriminatory.

I accept that the Applicant perceives that others judge her for being the subject of 18 IPOs. However this is not relevant to the decisions to be made by me.

1. The Applicant says that the making of the IPO is not about lawful process but about control - yet another attempt to silence, restrict, and pathologise her existence as a human being through instruments of state authority, under the guise of protecting the public from the so-called "mentally ill" person. The process only reinforces the erasure of disadvantaged people from fully participating as healthy citizens in their community.
2. I do not accept this submission.

1. I am satisfied that the correct and preferable decision is to make the Interim Prohibition Order because:

(1) The Applicant has breached Clauses 3 (1) and 9 of the 2012 Code as she has not provided health services in a safe and ethical manner and is suffering from a mental impairment that detrimentally affected, or is likely to detrimentally affect, her ability to practise, or placed clients at risk of harm.

(2) The Applicant has breached Clauses 1 (1) and 7 of the 2022 Code as she has not provided health services in a safe and ethical manner and is suffering from a mental impairment that detrimentally affected, or is likely to detrimentally affect, her ability to practise, or placed clients at risk of harm.

(3) The Applicant poses a serious risk to the health or safety of members of the public (S 41AA(2)(b)(i) of the HCC Act).

(4) The making of an IPO against the Applicant is necessary to protect the health or safety of members of the public (S 41AA(2)(b)(ii) of the HCC Act). The protection of the health and safety of the public must be the paramount consideration consistent with s 3(2) of the HCC Act when considering an exercise of the power under s 41AA of the HCC Act.

(1) The decision of the Health Care Complaints Commission made on 4 June 2025 is affirmed.

(2) Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the disclosure of the name and identifying details of any complainant against or prior patient of Dr Devina Singh, including social media names, media avatars and email addresses, is prohibited.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.