Health Ombudsman v Roopnarinesingh [2026] QCAT 132

[1] This proceeding is brought by the Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman ('applicant') against Akash Anup Roopnarinesingh ('respondent'). There are two allegations made against the respondent, both of which are admitted. The first allegation is that the respondent recorded false or misleading information or caused false or misleading information to be recorded in the Mater Private Hospital at Rockhampton. The second allegation is one of the respondent misappropriating for his own use two diazepam 5mg tablets.

[2] On 30 March 2026 the Tribunal made the findings, orders and recommendation set out above. Following are the reasons underpinning the findings and orders.

[3] The orders and findings to be made were agreed between the parties, and in support of those findings and orders, the applicant submitted:

The applicant submits the agreed sanction is appropriate because:

(a) While self-medicating, the respondent proposed to use the medication for genuine clinical need in circumstances where the respondent did not want to be impaired in fulfilling his own clinical duties. The quantity of medication was only two diazepam tablets;

(b) the conduct involved a poor misjudgement on the part of the respondent, including the implication of a patient in his misconduct, and he could have obtained the necessary treatment or medication through proper channels without substantial inconvenience. He also caused false patient records to be made whether the conduct was a one-off misjudgement.

The respondent has admitted the gravamen of the conduct albeit not every factual matter is agreed. The essence of the conduct is agreed and the parties have reached agreement on characterisation and sanction, obviating the need for a trial.

The respondent has expressed regret for the incident and has undertaken relevant education.

[4] That the parties have agreed as to the appropriate findings and orders is a significant factor to be taken into account, particularly where both parties are legally represented. It is of course a matter for the Tribunal to determine the final outcome, but having regard to the facts and circumstances surrounding this matter, the Tribunal agreed that the findings and orders proposed by the parties ought be adopted. Given the situation that there are no factual disputes and there is agreement as to the findings and appropriate orders, it is not necessary to dwell on the facts and circumstances that bring the respondent before the Tribunal in too much detail. At paragraphs 1 and 2 of the applicant's submissions, with which the respondent agrees, it was said

1. The respondent is a medical practitioner. At the time relevant to these proceedings, he was employed at the Mater Private Hospital in Rockhampton as a specialist obstetrician and gynaecologist.
2. This Referral concerns an incident on 14 April 2023 in which the respondent misappropriated, for his own use, two diazepam 5mg tablets from the Hospital and made records in a patient's chart and the drug register falsely recording that the diazepam had been prescribed and dispensed to that patient. The respondent admits these allegations, save for some specific aspects of how the incident unfolded. The parties are now in agreement that those factual disputes need not be resolved...

[5] The Tribunal agrees with that assessment. The only matter that was left for the Tribunal to decide was whether it should recommend that the reprimand be removed from the public record after a period of time. On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that that period of time should be no more than 12 months. On behalf of the applicant, it did not really challenge that such a recommendation be made, and in its reply said as follows

The respondent submits the Tribunal may consider expressing the view that 12 months from the date of order should be appropriate time for which the reprimand ought to be published. The department makes no submission in relation to the issue and notes Deputy President Dann's commentary in the recent Tribunal decision of Dental Board of Australia v Patel [2025] QCAT 97.

It can be said that in all the circumstances of this case little turns on the observations made in that case.

[6] In the unchallenged affidavit of the respondent he described being under extreme pressure at the time, and in circumstances where he was experiencing sudden and very painful spasms in his lower back. He was concerned that he would not be able to function appropriately whilst in that condition, and as a consequence of that, he falsely took and recorded the two diazepam tablets. It should be noted that he had been prescribed diazepam for his back problems on earlier occasions.

[7] Almost immediately after the subject conduct he presented to a Dr Michael Keating, who conducted a comprehensive examination of the respondent's back, which included a referral for lumbosacral MRI and also other treatment. It would appear that since this incident the respondent has also continued attending on Dr Keating to deal with the ongoing management of his back and spinal condition. Also, almost immediately after the incident, the respondent undertook and completed several educational modules which included

(a) the ethical aspects of record-keeping; and

(b) the risks associated with self-prescribing medication; and

(c) the importance of keeping within professional boundaries.

[8] Having regard to the references filed on behalf of the respondent, it is apparent that he is a well-respected practising surgeon. The Tribunal is also sufficiently satisfied that the respondent has full insight into the seriousness of his conduct and is remorseful for it. As already referred to, it would also seem clear that the conduct was not only out of character but occurred in somewhat extenuating circumstances which, while not providing an excuse for the conduct, provide some relevant background and insight as to what precipitated that course of conduct. It can also be said that such conduct tends to fall at the lower end of such conduct.

[9] Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, including the militating factors in favour of the respondent, the Tribunal decided not only to make the findings and orders agreed to, but also to make the recommendation sought on the respondent's behalf. It is for these reasons that the Tribunal made the orders and findings that it did.