[T]he Respondent admits that he visited the Patient at her home on or around 2 March 2014 and 30 May 2014. The Respondent says further that the visits he made to the Patient on those occasions were in the context of a social relationship which he had developed with the Patient outside of a therapeutic relationship.

(a) telephoned the Patient and stated that he had some test results to give her from RPH;

(b) met the Patient at a coffee shop in West Perth;

(c) told the Patient he wanted to refer her to a sleep clinic;

(e) arranged to, and subsequently visited, the Patient at her home that evening.

(a) admits that he telephoned the Patient on or around 30 May 2014;

(b) denies that he stated that he had some test results from RPH to give to the Patient;

(c) admits that he met the Patient at a coffee shop in West Perth;

(d) denies that he told the Patient he wanted to refer her to a sleep clinic;

(e) denies that he asked to see the Patient on the evening of 30 May 2014 and says further that the Patient suggested they meet in the evening to discuss the potential sale of a property by the Patient to the Respondent; and

(f) admits that he visited the patient at her home on the evening of 30 May 2014.

12.1 the Respondent and the Patient discussed the Patient's health issues and other unrelated matters;

12.2 the Patient informed the Respondent that she had pain in her heart and chest;

(i) said words to the effect of 'Let's have a look';

12.4 the Patient removed her top and bra and laid down on the floor on her back;

(v) put his left ear to the Patient's chest, in between her breasts, and told the Patient he was trying to hear her heartbeat;

(vi) fondled and groped the Patient's breasts with his hands; and

12.7 the Respondent stood and stated words to the effect of' 'Come and sit in the chair', to which the Patient stated 'No';

12.9 the Patient repeatedly stated words to the effect of 'No" and 'What are you doing?'; and

12.10 the Respondent stopped and the Patient asked him to leave.

(a) admits that he discussed the Patient's health issues in a general manner with the Patient and says further that, at that time, the Patient enquired about whether a referral for a sleep study, as suggested by her psychiatric counsellor, was required and requested that he provide her with a referral to a sleep clinic; and

(b) otherwise denies the allegations occurred in paragraph 12 in their entirety.

1. On 18 June 2014, the Applicant took immediate action by imposing conditions on the Respondent's general registration under section 156 of the National Law.

1. It is contended that the Respondent by his conduct in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Facts acted in breach of his professional boundaries in relation to the Patient.
2. It is contended that the Respondent by his conduct in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Facts engaged in professional misconduct, alternatively unprofessional conduct, alternatively unsatisfactory professional performance as defined in section 5 of the National Law.
3. It is contended that by his conduct in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Facts the Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct.
4. It is contended that by his conduct in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Facts the Respondent has engaged in professional misconduct, alternatively unprofessional conduct, alternatively unsatisfactory professional performance as defined in section 5 of the National Law.
5. It is contended that the Respondent by his conduct in paragraphs 9 and 10 and/or 11 and 12 acted contrary to Good Medical Practice: A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia (July 2010 and 17 March 2014).
6. It is contended that the Respondent by his conduct in paragraphs 9 and 10 and/or 11 and 12 acted contrary to Sexual Boundaries: Guidelines for doctors (28 October 2011).
7. It is contended that by the sum of his conduct in paragraphs 9 and 10 and 11 and 12 the Respondent engaged in professional misconduct as defined by section 5 of the National Law.

29 Dr Veettill denies each of the Board's contentions.

30 The Patient and Dr Veettill provided written statements, gave oral evidence and were cross­examined.

31 The Board's case relied primarily on the evidence of the Patient.

1. the first interaction between the Patient and Dr Veettill was when he attended her home on 10 March 2013;
2. on that occasion Dr Veettill attended as a medical practitioner;

1. excluding the three calls of 10 March 2013, Dr Veettill telephoned the Patient's mobile number on 28 occasions;

1. excluding the three calls of 10 March 2013, 11 of those calls lasted 11 seconds or less;
2. Dr Veettill made the post 10 March 2013 calls on 10 different days from 11 March 2013 to 2 June 2014 inclusive: 11, 12 and 14 March 2013; 15 and 16 April 2013; 7 May 2013; 2 and 3 March 2014; 30 May 2014; and 2 June 2014;
3. Dr Veettill did not necessarily speak to the Patient on each of the occasions on which he telephoned the Patient's number, particularly when the calls were 11 seconds or less;
4. on two of those days, 14 March 2013 and 7 May 2013, Dr Veettill made single calls lasting eight seconds and 11 seconds respectively;
5. substantive calls were made on eight days;
6. on 2 March 2014, Dr Veettill accessed the RPH computer to look at the Patient's medical records. He printed those records out (Exhibit B, NR2) and provided them to the Patient at a later date;
7. Dr Veettill did not access the RPH records pursuant to a doctor/patient relationship; and
8. on 30 May 2014, Dr Veettill:
   1. met with the Patient at a coffee shop near an apartment owned by her;
   2. telephoned her on a number of occasions; and
   3. attended at her home that evening and there was physical contact between them.

34 The primary matters in issue relating to the alleged sexual conduct by Dr Veettill are:

1. What was the nature of the relationship between Dr Veettill and the Patient after 10 March 2013?
2. How many times did Dr Veettill visit the Patient's home?

1. Did Dr Veettill behave in a manner that was sexually inappropriate towards the Patient and did he engage in sexual contact towards her?

35 Dr Veettill conceded that if the Tribunal substantially or entirely accepted the Patient's evidence of the interaction between her and Dr Veettill on 30 May 2014, then that interaction would constitute professional misconduct, whether or not a doctor-patient relationship existed.

36 The primary issue relating to Dr Veettill's access to the Patient's RPH records is how should the conduct be characterised ­ as professional misconduct, unprofessional conduct or unsatisfactory professional performance?

37 Until about 30 June 2013, the Patient had been employed by a resort company in the sale of vacation credits (T: 14 ­ 15).

38 The Patient also owned an apartment in the city which she let for short­term accommodation (T: 15).

39 The Patient had business cards (Exhibit F, PV2; Exhibit G) for her short term accommodation business. She used those business cards only for the short term business accommodation (T: 15).

40 The Patient suffered from severe back pain from time to time.

41 On 9 March 2013, Dr Abolarinwa, another locum from ALMS, had attended at the Patient's home and treated her for severe back pain (Exhibit A, page 51; Exhibit B [4]).

42 On 10 March 2013, at some time prior to 10 pm, the Patient placed a call to ALMS because her severe back pain had still not resolved (Exhibit B [5]). ALMS instructed Dr Veettill to attend the Patient's home (Exhibit F [20]).

43 On his way to the Patient's home, Dr Veettill called the Patient's mobile number three times. Each of the calls was of very short duration: 11 seconds, 36 seconds and 6 seconds (Exhibit D).

44 It is apparent from the fact that Dr Veettill was able to call the Patient on his way to treat her that he must have received the Patient's mobile number from ALMS.

45 The Patient's evidence was that Dr Veettill rang to advise who he was and that he would be there shortly (T: 22; Exhibit B [10]). Dr Veettill's evidence was to the same effect (Exhibit F [23] ­ [25]). The Patient also said that during these telephone calls, she told Dr Veettill that the front door was unlocked, to come right in, and that her bedroom was immediately to the right (Exhibit0B_0[11]; T: 24). Dr Veettill denied this.

46 The Patient's evidence is that when she was lying on her queen size bed (Exhibit B [13]; T: 25), she heard Dr Veettill at the front door and called him in (Exhibit B [12]). Dr Veettill's evidence is that the Patient opened the front door when he rang the bell (Exhibit G [26] ­ [30]). Dr Veettill's evidence is that after opening the door for him, the Patient sat on the edge of her bed (Exhibit F [30]).

47 The Patient's evidence was that she was in pain (Exhibit B [5]).

48 Dr Veettill's evidence is that he 'could immediately see from [the Patient's] demeanour and facial expression that she was in severe pain' (Exhibit F [27]).

49 Dr Veettill asked the Patient about her back pain. He asked her to stand up while he examined her (Exhibit B [15] ­ [16]; T: 25).

50 Dr Veettill accepted that on 10 March 2013, the Patient was complaining of severe back pain. He denied that the patient was physically incapacitated (T: 115).

51 The ALMS Patient Treatment Report (the Report) completed by Dr Veettill is that the Patient 'had difficulty in bending and had muscle spasms' (Exhibit F [32]). The Report, under the heading 'record of examination findings' states 'Muscles Tender, Specific, Can't Bend, No spinal tenderness, Nil Neurology ...' (Exhibit A, page 12).

52 The Patient's evidence is that Dr Veettill gave her an injection in her buttocks and a tablet for her back pain (Exhibit B [19]).

53 Dr Veettill accepted that he gave the patient an injection but denied that he gave her a tablet (T: 116).

54 The Report records that Dr Veettill injected 'Morphine 10 Mg IM'.

55 Dr Veettill's evidence is that he administered an injection of Diazepam, rather than morphine, to relieve the muscle spasms (Exhibit F [33]; T: 142).

56 Dr Veettill stated that he made an error in the Report when he entered morphine rather than Diazapam. He said that he corrected the Report in about June 2014. He did so after checking the Report against the separate record of scheduled drugs (T: 142 ­ 144).

57 Dr Veettill denied that he changed the record because of the nature of the complaint that had been made by the Patient (T: 144).

58 It is of concern that Dr Veettill waited until after the complaint had been made by the Patient to correct the Report.

59 The Patient's evidence is that she was in pain, tired and drowsy after receiving the medication (Exhibit B [26]).

60 It is clear from the evidence of both parties that when Dr Veettill attended on 10 March 2013, the Patient was in severe pain. The fact that the locum's attendance on the previous day was unable to resolve the pain, suggests that the Patient had experienced pain for an extended period of time. The Patient's evidence that she was in pain, tired and drowsy after the injection is consistent with the objective facts.

61 The Patient's evidence is that after giving her the injection, Dr Veettill told her that he needed to stay to monitor her (Exhibit B [20]). He then walked to the other side of the bed and lay down beside the Patient without seeking the Patient's permission (Exhibit B [21]). The Patient's evidence is that she was uncomfortable that Dr Veettill did this.

62 Dr Veettill's evidence is that he did not lie on the bed but that he sat on the edge of the bed at the Patient's invitation and that he waited about 5 minutes after administering the injection (Exhibit G [36] and [38]).

63 There was some conversation between them (Exhibit B [22] ­ [27]; T: 26 ­ 27). Dr Veettill's evidence is that the Patient was very talkative. His evidence was that she had a business which provided 'world class accommodation in multiple cities around the world if you paid a membership sum in advance' (Exhibit F [41]).

64 The Patient denied that she discussed her work or her business with Dr Veettill on 10 March 2013. She said that she was sick at that time (T: 28 ­ 29). She did admit that she discussed her work in general terms on a later date.

65 Dr Veettill's evidence was that the Patient escorted him to the front door, then went back to get her business card and invited him to contact her if he was interested (Exhibit F [40] ­ [47]).

66 The Patient's evidence is that she remained in her bedroom throughout Dr Veettill's visit. She did not show him out (T: 20 ­ 21).

67 Dr Veettill's evidence was that the Patient gave him the card and said 'If you are interested in my accommodation scheme give me a ring' (Exhibit F [41] ­ [41]; T: 111, 116).

68 The Patient denied that she gave Dr Veettill a copy of her business card at the end of his visit on 10 March 2013 (Exhibit G). She explained that her business cards were lying on the dining table at her house. She denied that she got off her bed to give him a business card. She explained that the reason that she had rung for a doctor in the first place was because she was unable to walk.

69 The Patient denied that she told Dr Veettill that he should contact her if he was interested in the accommodation scheme. She also denied that the calls he made to her in the following days were to discuss these matters (T: 40 ­ 41).

70 The Patient denied that she gave Dr Veettill her telephone number. She denied that she had given him any of her personal contact details (T: 29).

71 Dr Veettill's evidence that the Patient went to the front door with him and returned to get a business card is premised on the fact that there was an attempt by the Patient to sell vacation credits to him.

72 The Patient called ALMS because she was in some pain. She was given an injection of Diazepam. Given the patient's physical condition, it is implausible that she would have attempted to persuade Dr Veettill to purchase vacation credits.

73 There was no reason for the Patient to have given Dr Veettill her business card so that he had her telephone number. Dr Veettill already had her number. He had rung her three times that evening.

74 Further, the business card (Exhibit G) did not relate to the vacation credit scheme, so it made no sense to give it to him.

75 Where the evidence of the Patient and Dr Veettill conflicts, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of the Patient as to the events of 10 March 2013.

76 The phone records (Exhibit D) show that Dr Veettill called the Patient on seven occasions between 11 March 2013 and 7 May 2013. The calls on 14 March 2013 and 7 May 2013 can be discounted because they were of 8 and 11 seconds respectively. There were two calls on 16 April 2013. Therefore there were four separate days on which Dr Veettill and the Patient spoke in this period. In addition to Dr Veettill calling the Patient on 15 April 2013, there were the two calls from the Patient to Dr Veettill.

77 Dr Veettill telephoned the Patient at 14:02 on 11 March 2013. The call lasted just under 10 minutes (Exhibit D).

78 Dr Veettill's evidence was that he obtained the Patient's telephone number from her business card (Exhibit F [49]; T: 118). The Patient's evidence was that on 11 March 2013, Dr Veettill told her that he obtained her number from her (ALMS) records (Exhibit B [32]).

79 The Patient's evidence was that Dr Veettill told her that the reason for the call was to see how she was going. She told him that she 'wasn't good, was still in pain, very fatigued and he said he would come to my house to review me' (Exhibit B [30] ­ [34]).

80 Dr Veettill's evidence was that he rang to 'find out more about the membership scheme'.

81 Dr Veettill admitted that he enquired about the Patient's health but denied that it was intended to be a follow-up from the consultation of 10 March 2013 (Exhibit F [53]).

82 Dr Veettill's evidence is that he telephoned the Patient on 12 March 2013 about the accommodation scheme, that is, the vacation credits scheme, and that she gave him full details of the scheme (Exhibit F [16]).

83 Dr Veettill's evidence is that the Patient told him that the membership was $10,000 ­ $30,000. He was not interested because the fees were too high and most of the accommodation was in Europe (Exhibit F [58]).

84 The Patient did not give any specific evidence as to this call.

85 Exhibit B, NR1 showed that the Patient telephoned Dr Veettill twice on 15 April 2013. The first call at 21:27 was about five minutes and the second at 21:35 about 18 minutes. Those were the only occasions on where the Patient telephoned Dr Veettill.

86 The calls were about three minutes apart. The Patient's evidence is that she thought that she did not get through on the first occasion and rang again (T: 36).

87 Dr Veettill explained that he put the Patient's number in his contacts because she had said to ring her later about the accommodation service on 10 March 2013 (T: 123).

88 On this occasion he gave evidence that he entered the Patient's number and first name in his contacts list about two or three days after he first met her in a doctor/patient capacity on 10 March 2013 (T: 124). Earlier in his evidence, Dr Veettill claimed that he put the Patient's telephone number in his contacts list about two to three weeks after 10 March 2013 (T: 117).

89 The Patient's evidence is that she rang Dr Veettill because she was in a crisis situation with her health and she was not able to see her regular General Practitioner (GP) until 16 April 2013. She rang him because he was familiar with her condition and knew about her overall situation (Exhibit D [56]).

90 Dr Veettill's evidence is that he was initially unable to talk at that time because he was driving (Exhibit F [60]). Dr Veettill called the Patient at 22:49 (Exhibit D).

91 Dr Veettill's evidence is that during the second call the Patient requested a medical certificate but that he told her that he was unable to provide one. She then started to discuss her work and problems that she was having with her niece who also worked with her. He said he was busy at the time but that they could discuss the matter further later (Exhibit F [11] ­ [12]).

92 The Patient denied that she requested a medical certificate from Dr Veettill on 15 April 2013 (T: 73).

93 Dr Veettill rang the Patient's number twice on 16 April 2013 at 21:34 for 38 minutes and at 22:30 for 26½ minutes (Exhibit D).

94 Dr Veettill's evidence is that the conversations were mostly about the Patient's work and family issues, particularly her niece. He stated that no medical issues were discussed and that he did not provide any medical advice or treatment (Exhibit F [63] ­ [68]).

95 The Patient's evidence is that Dr Veettill spoke to her for about an hour discussing her crisis situation and his medical recommendations (Exhibit B [59]).

The matter the subject of the telephone calls between 11 March and 16 April 2013

96 It is difficult to understand why the Patient would have entered into discussions with Dr Veettill other than on the basis that she understood those discussions to be between a patient and doctor. The Patient had met Dr Veettill in a patient/doctor relationship. If she was interested in selling vacation credits, it is hard to understand why her sales pitch would include her medical history and the stress her niece was causing her at work. If Dr Veettill was a potential client, these kinds of discussions seem entirely counter­productive. On the other hand, they are entirely consistent with the type of information that would be provided in a patient/doctor relationship.

97 Where the evidence of the Patient and Dr Veettill conflicts, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of the Patient.

98 The Patient understood her contact with Dr Veettill to be pursuant to a doctor/patient relationship.

Did Dr Veettill visit the Patient's home in the period 11 March to 16 April 2013?

99 The Patient's evidence was that Dr Veettill always called her before he visited her (T: 34). He did not visit her on every occasion that he telephoned her (T: 34). The Patient's evidence is that Dr Veettill would call and ask how she was. She told him that she wasn't well, they discussed her health and her symptoms and he would sometimes say that he would come and visit her (Exhibit B [37]).

100 The Patient was positive that Dr Veettill visited her home on at least five occasions (T: 33; Exhibit B [36]). Her evidence was that Dr Veettill came to see her on at least four occasions during the period 10 March 2013 to 16 April 2013 (T: 16; 49 ­ 52), i.e. on three occasions between 11 March 2013 and 16 April 2013.

101 The Patient was unable to remember the specific days on which Dr Veettill attended

102 The Patient said that Dr Veettill came to her house again within one or two days after 10 March 2013 (Exhibit B [35]; T: 16).

103 Dr Veettill's evidence was that he attended at the Patient's house on three occasions: 10 March 2013, 2 March 2014 and 30 May 2014. That is, that he attended only once in 2013. He said that he did not go into the Patient's house on 2 March 2014 (T: 111).

104 In re­examination the Patient confirmed that, excluding 10 March 2013 and 30 May 2014, she thought that Dr Veettill had come to her house on three occasions, the first, fairly shortly after 10 March 2013. On each occasion that he attended her home, he came into the house (T: 104). In re­examination the Patient described her condition, when the three visits took place after the initial consultation on 10 March 2013, as being in a bad way, physically, emotionally and mentally (T: 106).

105 The Patient gave evidence that Dr Veettill medically examined her on each occasion he visited her (T: 53). The Patient accepted that Dr Veettill examined her in the front bedroom and in the lounge/dining area.

106 There was ample opportunity for Dr Veettill to pick up one of the Patient's business cards from the table.

107 On two of the three occasions between 11 March and 16 April 2013, inclusive, when Dr Veettill attended her home, he examined her breasts. There is no allegation arising from these examinations (Exhibit B [47] ­ [52]).

108 The Patient gave evidence that during one of the house calls, Dr Veettill said that she was beautiful. She that that it was an unusual remark for a doctor to make to a patient (Exhibit B [53]).

109 Where the evidence of the Patient and Dr Veettill conflicts, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of the Patient concerning the period from 11 March to 16 April 2013. It follows that Dr Veettill did attend the Patient's home on three occasions between 11 March and 16 April 2013, inclusive.

110 On 26 February 2014, the Patient was admitted to RPH after experiencing shortness of breath and chest pain during a flight from Melbourne. She was discharged on the same day (Exhibit B [62]; Exhibit C, page 9 and page 17).

111 There was a gap of about 10 months between Dr Veettill's last call to the Patient on 16 April 2013 and his next call on 2 March 2014.

112 On 2 March 2014, there was a burst of calls by Dr Veettill.

113 Exhibit D shows there were nine calls by Dr Veettill to the Patient's number on 2 March 2014. Six of these calls were of a duration of 10 seconds or less. There were three substantive calls, one at 10:31 of about 30 minutes, one at 13:36 of just over 2½ minutes and one at 18:08 of about 10 minutes.

Dr Veettill's explanation for the initial call on 2 March 2014

114 Dr Veettill's explanation as to why he rang the Patient on 2 March 2014 was:

When I was scrolling through my contact list I found this number. Well I thought she was an old friend of mind. I just rang her as a courtesy call.

(T: 119)

115 It is difficult to understand how six telephone calls between 11 March 2013 and 16 April 2013 could provide the foundation for describing the Patient as an 'old friend'.

116 The use of the term 'old friend' by Dr Veettill was plainly not a slip of the tongue as he used that expression in his witness statement (Exhibit F [73]).

117 Dr Veettill's description of the Patient as 'old friend' simply does not ring true.

118 Dr Veettill further gave evidence that he initially rang on 2 March 2014 to see what had happened with the Patient's niece (T: 121).

119 The Patient ceased work in June 2013. In cross­examination, she accepted that she lost her job because of her niece who worked for the same company. She conceded that she had spoken to Dr Veettill about her niece. Her evidence was that she spoke to him about her niece because of her medical condition and the way the resultant stress was affecting her (T: 38 ­ 39).

120 The Patient gave evidence that in the course of the 2 March 2014 conversations, she discussed her recent hospitalisation, her health issues and her symptoms with Dr Veettill (Exhibit B [63]).

121 Dr Veettill denied that the main point of the telephone discussions was the Patient's health (T: 122 ­ 123).

122 Dr Veettill accepted that during the 10:31 telephone call on 2 March 2014, that the Patient 'discussed what had happened to her and why she had to be admitted to Royal Perth Hospital and generally the treatment she had' (T: 132). Dr Veettill's evidence confirms this topic of conversation (Exhibit F [77]).

123 The Patient denied that she told Dr Veettill that she was unhappy with her treatment at Royal Perth Hospital, but rather that Dr Veettill told her that her treatment had not been good (T: 65).

124 Dr Veettill's evidence was that he asked the Patient if she had undergone blood testing at RPH and she advised that she had done so and had all the results at home (Exhibit F [81]).

125 On 2 March 2014 Dr Veettill rang the Patient at 18:08. That conversation lasted a little over 10 minutes, that is, until about 18:18 (Exhibit D). Exhibit B NR2 shows that Dr Veettill printed out the Patient's test results from Royal Perth Hospital on 2 March 2014 at about 18:12, that is, during this telephone conversation.

126 The Patient denied that during the conversations of 2 March 2014 she discussed blood tests, although she said that Dr Veettill mentioned blood tests after the conversations of 2 March 2014 (T: 67). Her evidence was that he told her on a later occasion, that he had acquired the records, although she could not remember when she told him (T: 67).

127 Dr Veettill gave evidence that the Patient asked him to access the RPH records (T: 132).

128 Dr Veettill gave evidence that he needed the Patient's number to access that patient's records and that he used the number which the Patient gave him to access the Patient's records (T: 133 ­ 134; Exhibit F [89]). The Patient denied that she gave Dr Veettill any information to enable him to access her RPH results.

129 The evidence of Dr Alison Johns, the Acting Director of Clinical Services at Royal Perth Hospital is that a unique login is required by a clinician in order to access the Royal Perth Hospital. Once that clinician gains access, then a patient search can be conducted in the system using the patient's name or date of birth and/or the unique medical records number (Exhibit C, page 2). It is apparent from Dr Johns' evidence that Dr Veettill would not have required the unique medical records number from the Patient in order to search the records. The Patient's name would have been sufficient.

130 Dr Veettill stated that he was unaware that a patient's records could be accessed using only the patient's name (T: 135). It is difficult to accept that Dr Veettill would have been unaware that a patient's results could be accessed using their name. Requiring a medical records number on each occasion would be impractical, given that it is unlikely that patients would always have it with them, especially if a patient was admitted on an emergency basis.

131 Dr Veettill gave evidence that he attended the Patient's home on 2 March 2014 after he had printed the blood test results but that he did not give them to her (T: 138 ­ 139).

132 Dr Veettill gave evidence that he attended the Patient's house on 2 March 2014 'because she suggested to pay a visit because she was sick' (T: 139).

133 In his witness statement, Dr Veettill gave evidence that the Patient suggested that he should visit her at home if he had time. He interpreted this as suggesting that they should meet socially (Exhibit F [82]).

134 The Patient gave evidence that in the telephone conversation of 2 March 2014, it was Dr Veettill who suggested that he come and visit her. She denied that Dr Veettill in fact visited her on the evening of 2 March 2014 (T: 66).

135 It is difficult to see how this conversation could be construed as other than arising from a patient/doctor relationship.

136 Where the evidence of the Patient and Dr Veettill conflict concerning the telephone conversations of 2 March 2014, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of the Patient.

137 Dr Veettill's evidence was that on 2 March 2014, he attended the Patient's house within an hour of printing off the results (T: 113).

138 Dr Veettill's evidence is that it never occurred to him to post, scan and email or fax the medical records to the Patient (T: 154).

139 Dr Veettill's evidence is that he printed the results at the Patient's request on 2 March 2014 and placed them in his car (Exhibit F [89]). His evidence was that he did not give the Patient her results when he was allegedly at her home on 2 March 2014, because she did not request them when he was there (Exhibit F [92]). It is at least strange that Dr Veettill should have printed out her RPH results at the Patient's request, put them in his car and then not given them to her because she did not request them. It also sits oddly with his claim that he called the Patient on 30 May 2014 to give her the results. There is no evidence that the Patient rang Dr Veettill to request her RPH results.

140 The Tribunal does not accept Dr Veetill's evidence that he attended the Patient's house on 2 March 2014. Had he done so, he would have given the Patient her RPH medical records.

141 Where the evidence of Dr Veettill and the Patient conflicts, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of the Patient.

142 The Tribunal finds that Dr Veettill did not attend the Patient's home on 2 March 2014.

143 Dr Veettill called the Patient again on 3 March 2014 at about 4 pm in the afternoon. The call lasted for about 10½ minutes (Exhibit D). His evidence is that he called to enquire about her well­being (Exhibit B [95]).

144 In order to put the events of 30 May 2014 in context, a table of calls is set out below:

145 Dr Veettill gave evidence that in late May 2014 he discovered the Patient's RPH records when he was cleaning his car.

146 Dr Veettill could offer no explanation as to why he kept the Patient's confidential medical results in his car other than that he forgot about them (T: 140).

147 Dr Veettill gave evidence that he telephoned the Patient on 30 May 2014 in order to give her the results (T: 139). The Patient denied that she was happy when Dr Veettill made contact with her on 30 May 2014 (T: 96).

148 On the first occasion on which Dr Veettill rang the Patient at about 14:33, she was at her short­term rental apartment. Dr Veettill gave evidence that during the first conversation, the Patient invited him for a coffee on 30 May 2014 (T: 154).

149 The Patient denied that she requested a meeting. The Patient's evidence was that Dr Veettill said that he had to give her her results. She said that she was too busy. Dr Veettill insisted on meeting her (Exhibit B [69] ­ [75]).

150 Dr Veettill arrived at about 3 pm. The Patient's evidence was that Dr Veettill parked in front of the property and that she met him in the front of the building (T: 81).

151 The Patient gave evidence that before going for tea, she may have brought him through the apartment (T: 82).

152 Dr Veettill claimed that on 30 May 2014, when he parked his car in front of the Patient's apartment, she said 'I have an apartment ­ I have a property for sale would you be interested' (T: 154). The Patient denied that she was interested in selling or renting her apartment to Dr Veettill (T: 82; 96).

153 The apartment was not occupied at that time. The Patient was getting it ready to rent out (T: 81). Dr Veettill's evidence was that the Patient stated that she would have to sell the apartment because of financial difficulties but that she wanted to keep her house (Exhibit B [110]). Although the Patient denied that she was interested in selling her apartment, she was interested in selling her home (T: 97).

154 Dr Veettill gave evidence that in August 2014, the apartment was advertised for sale (T: 155). He conceded that there was no for sale sign on 30 May 2014 (T: 155).

155 The Patient and Dr Veettill went for a tea afterwards. The Patient said that was to discuss the results (T: 82).

156 The Patient's evidence is that while they were having a cup of tea, the results were discussed and Dr Veettill said that they were normal (T: 83, 156).

157 The Patient's evidence is that Dr Veettill told her he needed to give her a referral for a sleep study after the cup of tea (T: 89 ­ 90). Dr Veettill denied that there was a discussion about a referral to a sleep clinic at that time (T: 156 ­ 157). Dr Veettill conceded that while sleep clinics were discussed, this discussion occurred at the Patient's home later that evening (T: 157).

158 The Patient denied that when she and Dr Veettill parted after having a cup of tea in West Perth, that she encouraged him to meet her again later (T: 89). It is clear that from the Patient's evidence (T: 89 ­ 91) that she was very tired. The Patient told Dr Veettill that she was going home to sleep (T: 90). Dr Veettill's evidence is that when he called the Patient after 5 pm, she said she was tired and sleepy (Exhibit F [114]). It was put to the Patient in cross­examination that she was not exhausted and did not need to sleep. The Patient did not agree with that and stated that it was 'absolutely not true' (T: 94).

159 Dr Veettill's evidence is that the Patient told him that she had to go to Welshpool because her car had been involved in a collision (Exhibit F [113]).

160 Dr Veettill's evidence was that the Patient invited him to call her after 5 pm to continue the discussion on the property (Exhibit F [115]).

161 The Patient did not recall going to Welshpool on the way home. At about 3.08 pm the Patient did make a telephone call of about 18 minutes to SGIO's insurance claims line (Exhibit H). There were subsequently two calls at about 3.30 pm, each of about four minutes in length to Prestige Accident Repairs (Prestige) in Welshpool (T: 85 ­ 86).

162 The Patient did not recall whether or not she had told Dr Veettill about needing to get the car repaired (T: 86). The Patient could not recall whether she went to Prestige on 30 May 2014 (T: 86 ­ 87).

163 At 3:47 pm, the Patient rang a mobile number ...404. It was put to her that this call was to PB, a real estate agent. The Tribunal infers that Dr Veettill sought to establish that the Patient rang PB as a consequence of Dr Veettill being interested in buying the apartment. The Patient said that PB was involved in 'house and land' rather than being a real estate agent.

164 PB was in fact the Patient's partner and they had been in a relationship for 15 years. The Patient's evidence is that she rang him on 30 May 2014 because they were in a relationship and not for business reasons (T: 102).

165 The Patient's evidence is that during one of the calls that evening, she told Dr Veettill that she wanted to sleep, but that he kept on ringing and harassing her (T: 91).

166 The Patient's recollection was that he had rung her after she had about an hour's sleep. She stated that she remembered this because she looked at her phone and noticed that it was approximately an hour and she was positive about that (T: 91 ­ 92). It is clear from the phone records set out above, that at no stage did the Patient sleep for an hour between 5 pm and 6 pm on the evening of 30 May 2014. Dr Veettill sought to make something of this, as establishing that her memory was flawed and therefore unreliable. The Tribunal finds that the Patient was wrong in her recollection that she slept for an hour but the Tribunal does not find that this impacts on her credibility.

167 The Patient's evidence is that in a subsequent telephone conversation on 30 May 2014, Dr Veettill insisted on seeing her again (T: 90). Dr Veettill's evidence is that the subsequent meeting was initiated by the Patient (Exhibit F [114]).

168 The Patient's evidence is that Dr Veettill told her that he needed to come over to refer her to a sleep specialist. She told him that she did not have the energy to cook dinner let alone see him again and she was going back to sleep. Dr Veettill said that he would bring something over for her to eat. He went on and on about it and she gave in (Exhibit B [87] ­ [91]).

169 The Patient denied that on the evening of 30 May 2014, she was perfectly capable of telling Dr Veettill not to come (T: 97).

170 Dr Veettill's evidence is that the Patient suggested that they meet at a multi-cuisine restaurant near Domino's. His evidence was that when he reached Domino's, he rang her at 7.24 pm and she then suggested he pick up some takeaway food and that they dine at her home (Exhibit F [119] ­ [122]).

171 Dr Veettill's explanation for the number of calls is that the Patient wanted food from a particular restaurant and he needed directions.

172 The Patient did not ring Dr Veettill. Dr Veettill made nine calls to the Patient from 5 pm onwards. Three of these calls were about five seconds. That leaves six calls.

173 When Dr Veettill arrived, the Patient and he sat at the dining room table and ate.

174 There was a discussion about the Patient's weight. The Patient's evidence is that Dr Veettill told her she needed to lose weight. As he was saying this, he was grabbing and pinching at her (Exhibit B [100] ­ [102]). Dr Veettill's evidence is that the Patient told him she needed to lose weight and showed him photos of herself (Exhibit F [126] ­ [127]).

175 The Patient's evidence is that they discussed Ayurvedic medicine (Exhibit B [97] ­ [98]).

176 Dr Veettill's evidence is that there was a discussion of her depression and her sleep problems (Exhibit F [130] ­ [131]). The Patient's evidence is that they discussed her sleep problems and that she showed him various sleep therapy clinics on her laptop computer screen (Exhibit B [99]).

177 Dr Veettill accepts that the Patient looked up sleep clinics on her laptop (Exhibit F [131]). Dr Veettill conceded that later that evening, the Patient used her laptop computer to look at sleep clinics and that she was talking to him about sleep clinics (T: 158 ­ 159). He denied that she was speaking to him as a doctor (T: 159).

178 Dr Veettill's evidence is that they then discussed the sale of the apartment (Exhibit F [132] ­ [134]).

179 Dr Veettill's evidence is that the Patient showed him a lesion on her neck and asked if he would nick it for her. Dr Veettill went to his car and got a sterilised needle and nicked the lesion (Exhibit F [136] ­ [138]). Dr Veettill conceded that he used a needle from his medical bag to prick a boil on her neck (T: 160).

180 Dr Veettill gave evidence that the Patient said to him 'You are caring. You know how to care. Bring me romance' (Exhibit B [140] ­ [144]) and that the conversation continued in a similar vein (T: 160; Exhibit B [139]).

181 Dr Veettill said that he was concerned by this conversation. Dr Veettill's evidence was that he could not have left because he was in a difficult situation (T: 161).

182 Dr Veettill's evidence was that there was a discussion about the Patient's concern about breast cancer (Exhibit F [147] ­ [151]). His evidence was that the Patient requested him to have a look at her breasts (Exhibit F [151]).

183 The Patient's evidence is that she told Dr Veettill that she was still having pain in her left breast and chest and that he said for her to lie on the floor because he would examine her to check her breasts and chest (Exhibit B [103] ­ [104]).

184 The Patient's evidence as to what happened next is:

1. I remember questioning this and said words to the effect of 'what? there?' while pointing to the floor.
2. Dr Vayal Veettil said words to the effect 'yes that is fine' and asked me to take my top and bra off.
3. I was wearing a top and leggings.
4. I did what Dr Vayal Veettil asked as I trusted him as a doctor. I got down on the rug on the floor. I expected that Dr Vayal Veettil was going to give me a medical examination.
5. I was laying on my back, with my arms down the side of my body.
6. Dr Vayal Veettil got down on the rug next to me, on my right side.
7. He directed and assisted me to move my left arm above my head and examined my left breast. He touched both breasts.
8. Dr Vayal Veettil then told me the examination was normal and not to worry and that I have no breast lumps.
9. I felt very uncomfortable because he was too close and I could smell his body odour and breath. I could see patches of dampness from perspiration under the arms of his shirt.
10. Dr Vayal Veettil then put his left ear on my chest, in between my breasts.
11. He told me he was trying to hear my heartbeat and that everything appeared to be normal.
12. He suddenly started kissing my breasts and then fondled and groped my breasts with both his hands.
13. I was in shock, and didn't know what to do.
14. I remember repeating 'No no no. What are doing?'. I said it out aloud. I pushed him away and got up.
15. There was an armchair nearby and Dr Vayal Veettil got up and said 'Come and sit on the chair'
16. I said no but he grabbed me and pulled me over to the chair anyway and forced me to sit on his lap with my back against his front.
17. Dr Vayal Veettil continued to grope my breasts and torso.
18. He wouldn't let me go, and was holding on very tightly. He was rubbing his groin area against me while I kept saying no and kept struggling to get away from him.
19. I kept saying 'No' and 'What are you doing?'. I was trying to pull away from him to get off him. I was trying to escape from his hold on me.
20. I didn't know what was going to happen next. I was really scared and fearful that he could do worse and no one would be able to hear me as I was alone with him in my own home.
21. I managed to struggle away from him. I grabbed and put my top back on.
22. I was in shock and I was trying to get calm and compose myself in order to handle the situation and make sure it didn't escalate. I remember him having this distinct smirk on his face that I will never forget.
23. He had calmed down. I asked him to leave. He still asked me to give him a hug after what he had just done to me.
24. I just said no, but he came up and hugged me anyway. He towered over me because he is so much taller than me. Even after I said no, he just did it anyway. He behaved as if nothing had happened.
25. He was dismissive and he showed no remorse for what he had just done to me.
26. He left. I do not remember how soon after he left. I was in shock.

1. [The Patient] said words to the effect of 'You are a good boy. I will kick you out if you misbehave.'
2. [The Patient] took my right hand and pressed it on her left beast on top of her clothes. She said she had no pain at that time but that she had breast implants. This was the first time she had ever behaved in a sexual way toward me.
3. She was fully dressed.
4. I took my hands away from her clothes.
5. I was very embarrassed. I have never felt any attraction towards [the Patient]. [The Patient] was very upset.

186 The Patient denied that on 30 May 2014 she made romantic advances towards him, that she took his hand and put it on her breast above her clothes (T: 98).

187 Dr Veettill's evidence is that he said that breast implants could give misleading results and that the Patient went to find her previous mammogram results. He says there was then a search in the Patient's garage.

188 Dr Veettill's evidence is that the search in the garage took about an hour and a half (Exhibit F [168]).

189 Dr Veettill's evidence was that he was at the Patient's house for three hours on 30 May 2014 and that he was concerned about the Patient's condition and for her vulnerability (Exhibit F [173] ­ [177]).

190 In the course of Dr Veettill's cross­examination a different picture emerged. The following exchange took place.

Okay. So you stayed there for another two hours? --- Yes.

Nothing is stopping you from walking out the door? --- Yes.

Yes. Stopping - - -

She's talking to you about her medical conditions? --- No. I would say there was a lot stopping me from moving out. I was in a - in a - in a clamp. I was in a bad situation. If I leave, I'm going to be in trouble. I ­ I don't know what she is going to do. I was - I was in a bad, bad situation at that time. I couldn't leave. I want to leave but I couldn't.

(T: 165)

You didn't think to leave? --- 1 thought of leaving.

There was nothing stopping you leaving? --- There was a lot stopping me leaving.

What was it? --- If I leave, she wasn't in a normal situation. She was behaving abnormally. If I leave that place at that time, if she's - when she's not calmed down, she can do anything. I will be in a - in a - the worst situation. I was concerned about myself.

Were you concerned about yourself, herself or both? --- Myself. The reason why I didn't leave.

And you were still concerned about yourself and the position you were placed in after you left on 30 May? --- Yes. I was - I was upset for the next two days.

You didn't speak to anyone about it? --- No.

When AHPRA contacted you in June, you had not told anyone about these concerns? --- No.

(T: 166)

And your concern, if I understood the evidence you've just given over the last five minutes was for you. Is that right? --- Yes.

Not for [the Patient]? --- No.

You didn't care that she was behaving in a strange manner? --- Yes. She was behaving in a strange manner, and that can harm me.

You're a medical practitioner. This lady, according to you, is behaving bizarrely. Do you understand what I'm saying? --- Yes.

You weren't concerned about her welfare? --- I was not ­ not her doctor.

You were just her good friend? --- Yes

(T: 167 ­ 168)

All right. Now, when she said that, why didn't you leave? --- Because I was in her house and just for making that comment, I shouldn't run away. I know that that is not proper but she just started then and it was escalating acutely.

All right? --- One after the other. There was no time to leave.

All right. What did you think might happen if you left too early? --- She can make up stories.

What did you hope to do by staying? --- I know that I have spoken to her a lot, and I went to her house on her suggestion, and if she calms down, and she want to sell that property to me, and I want to buy it, so if she calms down, it's not going to escalate to any other (indistinct).

191 This exchange illustrates that Dr Veettill was only concerned for himself. Dr Veettill did not give any convincing reason why he could not have just left the Patient's home. Plainly he could have. His explanation as to why he stayed casts doubt on his entire account of 30 May 2014.

192 The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Patient as to the events of 30 May 2014.

193 The Patient's evidence is that following the incident she contacted the Sexual Assault Resource Centre and her local GP (Exhibit B [136] ­ [137]).

194 Dr Veettill gave evidence that he rang the Patient on 2 June 2014 because he had not heard from her since the evening of 30 May 2014 'when she was in a very emotional and distressed state' (Exhibit F [179]).

195 Dr Veettill's evidence is that during the call, the Patient:

1. said she was ok;
2. asked if Dr Veettill was still interested in buying the apartment; and

196 The Patient's written statement (Exhibit B) gave evidence that she did not have any contact with Dr Veettill either in person or by telephone after 30 May 2014. The Patient's recollection is incorrect but it does not impact on her overall credibility.

197 She was unable to explain the 140 second telephone conversation with Dr Veettill on 2 June 2014 (T: 98).

198 The Tribunal accepts that a telephone conversation took place between Dr Veettill and the Patient on 2 June 2014, but does not accept Dr Veettill's evidence as to the subject of the call.

199 The Patient's evidence is that Dr Veettill asked her a lot of questions about her symptoms, her life and the stresses in her life. She told him about her family stresses and employment situation at the time. The Patient also gave Dr Veettill her health history (Exhibit B [39] ­ [47]).

200 The Patient's evidence was that she understood that on each occasion, Dr Veettill was at her home as a doctor treating her. It was always a health situation. She never considered that she was having a social relationship with Dr Veettill (T: 16).

201 There were four substantive telephone conversations between the Patient and Dr Veettill between 11 March and 16 April 2013 inclusive: 11 March, 12 March, 15 April and 16 April.

202 Dr Veettill's evidence is that after 10 March 2013, all his calls were social.

203 It is common ground that the Patient and Dr Veettill discussed the Patient's work situation and the stress she was under.

204 The Patient explained that she had discussed her niece's position with Dr Veettill because it was affecting her ability to function on a day-to-day basis and she was really struggling at that time and concerned about losing her job (T: 74).

205 Dr Veettill initiated all but two of the conversations.

206 The Patient's evidence was that every time Dr Veettill called her they spoke about her health (T: 31 ­ 32).

207 The Patient denied that on any of these occasions when Dr Veettill rang she talked to him about business matters (T: 49).

208 It was put to the Patient in cross­examination that she had tried to sell vacation credits to Dr Veettill. The Patient denied this. Her evidence was that she was not able to sell to a person unless they had been invited by the company (T: 39).

209 The Patient's evidence was that she never told Dr Veettill anything about her work with the resort company other than general matters. She denied that she attempted to get him to purchase vacation credits. She explained that her role in sales was only with people who had already been qualified by the company and that in effect, it was not cold selling. That is, that the persons to whom she spoke had already been qualified and vetted and that she had no role in that process (T: 39).

210 Dr Veettill's evidence was that apart from 10 March 2013, he never saw the Patient in a doctor/patient relationship (T: 112 ­ 113).

211 Dr Veettill denied that there had been any substantive discussion of the Patient's medical issues after 10 March 2013 (T: 114).

212 Dr Veettill accepted that apart from two calls by the Patient to him on 15 April 2014, he had initiated all the telephone calls between them (T: 114). Given Dr Veettill's evidence that the Patient was attempting to sell the vacation scheme to him, it is difficult to understand why he, rather than she, initiated all but two of the 28 calls (T: 115).

213 The Tribunal finds that the Patient regarded Dr Veettill's telephone calls and attendances at her home in this period as pursuant to a doctor/patient relationship.

214 The Patient admitted that she had income issues and various other concerns (T: 99). In re­examination, the Patient denied that she was romantically interested in Dr Veettill (T: 100). In re­examination the Patient made it clear that she always regarded the relationship as a doctor/patient relationship (T: 100).

215 The Tribunal found the Patient to be an honest witness who answered questions to the best of her ability. When asked to explain certain aspects of her evidence, she frankly admitted when she was unable to do so.

216 The Tribunal found Dr Veettill to be a less satisfactory witness. He appeared uncomfortable giving his evidence, particularly when explaining the interaction between himself and the Patient on 30 May 2014.

217 Dr Veettill's contact with the Patient arose on 10 March 2013 as a result of a doctor/patient relationship.

218 Dr Veettill had no professional clinical reason to contact the Patient after 10 March 2013. The Tribunal has rejected Dr Veettill's explanation that he contacted the Patient for any reason associated with the Patient's occupation or business.

219 The Patient understood Dr Veettill's telephone calls and contacts with her to be pursuant to a doctor/patient relationship.

220 Dr Veettill breached professional boundaries when:

1. between 11 March 2013 and 30 May 2014 he
   1. telephoned the Patient on a number of occasions;
   2. attended the Patient's home on four occasions, exclusive of 30 May 2014; and
2. on 30 May 2014, Dr Veettill:
   1. telephoned the Patient and stated that he had some test results to give her from RPH;
   2. met the Patient at a coffee shop in West Perth;
   3. told the Patient he wanted to refer her to a sleep clinic;
   4. asked to see the Patient that evening; and
   5. arranged to, and subsequently visited, the Patient at her home that evening.

221 It is important to bear in mind that had Dr Veettill not breached his professional boundaries, he would never have been at the Patient's home on 30 May 2014.

222 It is important that doctors bear in mind section 1.4 of 'Good Medical Practice', that is:

'Patients trust their doctors because they believe that, in addition to being competent, their doctor will not take advantage of them and will display qualities such as integrity, truthfulness, dependability and compassion. Patients also rely on their doctors to protect their confidentiality.'

223 Dr Veettill clearly failed to maintain professional boundaries contrary to section 8.2 of 'Good Medical Practice'.

224 We have applied the onus of proof according to the principles of Briginshaw and we feel an actual persuasion of the occurrence of the relevant facts in reaching our determination against Dr Veettill.

225 There is no separate allegation of misconduct by Dr Veettill in accessing the Patient's RPH medical records without her permission. The fact that the Tribunal has not imposed a penalty for that aspect of Dr Veettill's conduct should not be seen as the Tribunal regarding that conduct as appropriate. Had there been a specific allegation of misconduct as a basis for imposing a penalty, the Tribunal would have found that it amounted to professional misconduct. A doctor, using his access privileges to access the medical records of a person whom he says is not his patient, is extremely serious.

226 The Tribunal finds that Dr Veettill by his conduct, as set out in [220] above, acted in breach of his professional boundaries in relation to the Patient.

227 The Tribunal finds that Dr Veettill by his conduct, as set out in [220] above, acted contrary to 'Good Medical Practice: A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia' (July 2010 and 17 March 2014).

228 The Tribunal finds that the circumstances of Dr Veettill's conduct in breaching professional boundaries as set above, amounts to unsatisfactory professional performance.

229 The Tribunal also finds that at the Patient's home on 30 May 2014:

1. Dr Veettill and the Patient discussed the Patient's health issues and other unrelated matters;
2. the Patient informed Dr Veettill that she had pain in her heart and chest;
3. Dr Veettill:
   1. said words to the effect of 'Let's have a look';
   2. asked the Patient to lie on the floor; and
   3. asked the Patient to remove her top and bra;
4. the Patient removed her top and bra and laid down on the floor on her back;
5. Dr Veettill:
   1. laid down next to the Patient;
   2. moved the Patient's left arm above her head;
   3. examined the Patient's left breast;
   4. told the Patient the examination was normal;
   5. put his left ear to the Patient's chest, in between her breasts, and told the Patient he was trying to hear her heartbeat;
   6. fondled and groped the Patient's breasts with his hands; and
   7. kissed the Patient's breasts and nipples;
6. the Patient stated 'No, no, no';
7. Dr Veettill stood and stated words to the effect of' 'Come and sit in the chair', to which the Patient stated 'No';
8. Dr Veettill:
   1. pulled the Patient over to a chair;
   2. sat the Patient on his lap; and
   3. groped the Patient's breasts and torso;
9. the Patient repeatedly stated words to the effect of 'No' and 'What are you doing?'; and
10. Dr Veettill stopped and the Patient asked him to leave.

230 Dr Veettill by his conduct, as set out in [229] above, engaged in professional misconduct by sexual misconduct.

231 Dr Veettill by his conduct, as set out in [229] above, acted contrary to 'Sexual Boundaries: Guidelines for Doctors' (28 October 2011).

232 We have applied the onus of proof according to the principles of Briginshaw and we feel an actual persuasion of the occurrence of the relevant facts in reaching our determination against Dr Veettill.

233 Dr Veettill's conduct and comments would reasonably be regarded by his professional brethren of good repute and competency as dishonourable. Dr Veettill's conduct and comments would incur strong criticism from them. His conduct and comments are an egregious departure from the elementary and generally acceptable standards of medical practitioners. His conduct and comments portray indifference to the Patient and were an abuse of the privileges which accompany registration as a medical practitioner.

234 We are satisfied Dr Veettill sexually assaulted the Patient. There can be no question that his conduct constitutes professional misconduct.

1. The Tribunal finds the following disciplinary matters exist:

(a) Dr Veettill is guilty of unsatisfactory professional performance in that Dr Veettill breached professional boundaries when between 11 March 2013 and 30 May 2014 he:

(i) telephoned the Patient on a number of occasions;

(ii) attended the Patient's home on four occasions exclusive of 30 May 2014;

(iii) telephoned the Patient and stated that he had some test results to give her from RPH;

(iv) met the Patient at a coffee shop in West Perth;

(v) told the Patient he wanted to refer her to a sleep clinic;

(vii) arranged to, and subsequently visited, the Patient at her home that evening.

(b) The Tribunal also finds that Dr Veettill is guilty of professional misconduct in that, at the Patient's home on 30 May 2014:

(i) Dr Veettill and the Patient discussed the Patient's health issues and other unrelated matters;

(ii) the Patient informed Dr Veettill that she had pain in her heart and chest;

• said words to the effect of 'Let's have a look';
• asked the Patient to lie on the floor; and
• asked the Patient to remove her top and bra;

(iv) the Patient removed her top and bra and laid down on the floor on her back;

• laid down next to the Patient;
• moved the Patient's left arm above her head;
• examined the Patient's left breast;
• told the Patient the examination was normal;
• put his left ear to the Patient's chest, in between her breasts, and told the Patient he was trying to hear her heartbeat;
• fondled and groped the Patient's breasts with his hands; and
• kissed the Patient's breasts and nipples;

(vii) Dr Veettill stood and stated words to the effect of' 'Come and sit in the chair', to which the Patient stated 'No';

• pulled the Patient over to a chair;
• sat the Patient on his lap; and
• groped the Patient's breasts and torso;

(ix) the Patient repeatedly stated words to the effect of 'No' and 'What are you doing?'; and

(x) Dr Veettill stopped and the Patient asked him to leave.

1. The Board is to file and serve submissions on penalty by 24 November 2015.
2. Dr Veettill is to file and serve submissions in response on the question of penalty by 8 December 2015.
3. The matter is adjourned to a directions hearing on 22 December 2015 at 10 am to fix a date for hearing of submissions as to penalty of costs.

I certify that this and the preceding [234] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

___________________________________

ACT : HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW (WA) ACT 2010

CITATION : MEDICAL BOARD OF AUSTRALIA and VEETTILL [2015] WASAT 124 (S)

Medical practitioner - National Law - Sexual misconduct - Crossing of professional boundaries - Unsatisfactory professional performance - Professional misconduct - Improper access to patient's records - Unsatisfactory professional performance - Penalty - Suspension of registration - Imposition of conditions

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010, Schedule, s 3, s 4, s 192, s 196

Respondent suspended as a registered health practitioner for a period of 12 months

Conditions imposed following resumption of practice for a period of 12 months

Respondent to pay Medical Board of Australia's costs and disbursements at the scale provided for as if the proceedings had been in the Supreme Court of Western Australia

On 6 November 2015, the Tribunal found Dr Premanandan Vayal Veettill, a medical practitioner, guilty of unsatisfactory professional performance and professional misconduct for the purposes of s 196(1)(b) of the Schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010(National Law).

Following notification of the complaint by the patient on 18 June 2014, the Medical Board of Australia imposed conditions on Dr Veettill's registration and as a consequence of those conditions, Dr Veettill ceased practising in a clinical role.

The Tribunal considered the appropriate sanction and penalties pursuant to s 196(2), s 196(3) and s 196(4) of the National Law.

The Tribunal determined that it was appropriate to impose a global penalty having regard to Dr Veettill's overall conduct which occurred over two groups of days and involved one patient.

Although Dr Veettill had fallen below the high standards to be expected of a medical practitioner, the Tribunal was satisfied that he had not done in such a way as to indicate that he lacked the qualities of character which are the necessary attributes of a person entrusted with the responsibilities of a practitioner. The Tribunal was therefore satisfied that, upon completion of a period of suspension of 12 months, Dr Veettill would be fit to resume practice.

The Tribunal determined that the conditions imposed on Dr Veettill's registration on 18 June 2014 should be applied for a further period of 12 months of practice after the suspension period ends.

Dr Veettill was ordered to pay the Board's costs and disbursements at the scale provided for as if the proceedings had been in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

A Legal Practitioner (S) at [24]; Barwick v Council of the Law Society of NSW [2004] NSWCA 32

A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society of NSW [2004] HCA l; [2004] HCA 1; (2004) 216 CLR 253

Barristers' Board v Darveniza [2000] QCA 253; (2000) 112 A Crim R 438

Chamberlain v Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory [1993] FCA 527; (1993) 118 ALR 54

Council of the Law Society (NSW) v A Solicitor [2002] NSWCA 62

Craig v Medical Board of South Australia [2001] SASC 169; (2001) 79 SASR 545

Jemielita v Medical Board of Western Australia (unreported, WASC Library No 920584, 13 November 1992)

Law Society of New South Wales v Foreman (1994) 34 NSWLR 408

Law Society of New South Wales v Walsh [1997] NSWCA 185

Legal Practitioners ComplaintsCommittee v Thorpe [2008] WASC 9

Legal Profession Complaints Committee and A Legal Practitioner [2013] WASAT 37 (S)

Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Amsden [2014] WASAT 57 (S)

Legal Profession Complaints Committee and in de Braekt [2013] WASAT 124

Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Leask [2010] WASAT 133

Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Brickhill [2013] WASC 369

Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Detata [2012] WASCA 2014

Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Lashansky [2007] WASC 211

Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Love [2014] WASC 389

Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Masten [2011] WASC 71

Legal Profession Complaints Committee v O'Halloran [2013] WASC 430

Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Segler [2014] WASC 159

Medical Board of Australia and Myers [2014] WASAT 137 (S)

Medical Board of Australia and Veettill [2015] WASAT 124

New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins [2001] NSWCA 284; (2001) 52 NSWLR 279

New South Wales Bar Association v Evatt [1968] HCA 20; (1968) 117 CLR 177

New South Wales Bar Association v Hamman [1999] NSWCA 404

New South Wales Bar Association v Maddocks [1988] NSWCA 102

Quinn v Law Institute of Victoria [2007] VSCA 122

Re A Practitioner (1984) 36 SASR 590

Re H (a Barrister) [1981] 1 WLR 1257

Re Maraj (a Legal Practitioner) (1995) 15 WAR 12

Smith v New South Wales Bar Association [1992] HCA 36; (1992) 176 CLR 256

Stirling v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] VSCA 374

Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Howe (No 2) [2003] NSWADT 159

1 On 6 November 2015, following a hearing over two days, the Tribunal found Dr Premanandan Vayal Veettill, a medical practitioner, guilty of unsatisfactory professional performance and professional misconduct for the purposes of s 196(1)(b) of the Schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010 (National Law) - see Medical Board of Australia and Veettill [2015] WASAT 124 (Veettill).

2 The Tribunal is empowered to impose penalties pursuant to s 196(2), s 196(3) and s 196(4) of the National Law.

(a) Dr Veettill was guilty of unsatisfactory professional performance in that Dr Veettill breached professional boundaries when between 11 March 2013 and 30 May 2014 he:

(i) telephoned the Patient on a number of occasions;

(ii) attended the Patient's home on four occasions exclusive of 30 May 2014;

(iii) telephoned the Patient and stated that he had some test results to give her from RPH;

(iv) met the Patient at a coffee shop in West Perth;

(v) told the Patient he wanted to refer her to a sleep clinic;

(vii) arranged to, and subsequently visited, the Patient at her home that evening.

(b) The Tribunal also found that Dr Veettill was guilty of professional misconduct in that, at the Patient's home on 30 May 2014:

(i) Dr Veettill and the Patient discussed the Patient's health issues and other unrelated matters;

(ii) the Patient informed Dr Veettill that she had pain in her heart and chest;

• said words to the effect of 'Let's have a look';
• asked the Patient to lie on the floor; and
• asked the Patient to remove her top and bra;

(iv) the Patient removed her top and bra and laid down on the floor on her back;

• laid down next to the Patient;
• moved the Patient's left arm above her head;
• examined the Patient's left breast; told the Patient the examination was normal;
• put his left ear to the Patient's chest, in between her breasts, and told the Patient he was trying to hear her heartbeat;
• fondled and groped the Patient's breasts with his hands; and
• kissed the Patient's breasts and nipples;

(vii) Dr Veettill stood and stated words to the effect of 'Come and sit in the chair', to which the Patient stated 'No';

• pulled the Patient over to a chair;
• sat the Patient on his lap; and
• groped the Patient's breasts and torso;

(ix) the Patient repeatedly stated words to the effect of 'No' and 'What are you doing?'; and

(x) Dr Veettill stopped and the Patient asked him to leave.

4 In its submissions filed 24 November 2015, the Medical Board of Australia (the Board) sought the following orders:

13.1 [Dr Veettill's] registration be cancelled;

13.2 [Dr Veettill] be disqualified from applying for registration for a period of two years;

13.3 [Dr Veettill] be reprimanded; and

13.4 [Dr Veettill] pay the [Board's] costs to be assessed at the Supreme Court scale, alternatively, the Tribunal's scale of costs.

5 In his submissions filed on 15 December 2015, Dr Veettill sought orders that a suspension with conditions be imposed. He accepted that an order that he pay the Board's costs was appropriate.

6 Section 3 of the National Law sets out the objectives and guiding principles. Relevantly they are s 3(l)(a) and s 3(2)(a):

The object of this Law is to establish a national registration and accreditation scheme for -

the regulation of health practitioners; [and]

The objectives of the national registration and accreditation scheme are -

to provide for the protection of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered[.]

An entity that has functions under this Law is to exercise its functions having regard to the objectives and guiding principles of the national registration and accreditation scheme set out in section 3.

8 Section 196 of the National Law provides that if a responsible tribunal, which for present purposes is this Tribunal, finds that a practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct, it may decide to do one or more of the following:

...

(2) If a responsible tribunal makes a decision referred to in subsection (l)(b), the tribunal may decide to do one or more of the following -

(b) impose a condition on the practitioner's registration, including, for example -

(i) a condition requiring the practitioner to complete specified further education or training, or to undergo counselling, within a specified period; or

(ii) a condition requiring the practitioner to undertake a specified period of supervised practice; or

(iii) a condition requiring the practitioner to do, or refrain from doing, something in connection with the practitioner's practice; or

(iv) a condition requiring the practitioner to manage the practitioner's practice in a specified way; or

(v) a condition requiring the practitioner to report to a specified person at specified times about the practitioner's practice; or

(vi) a condition requiring the practitioner not to employ, engage or recommend a specified person, or class of persons;

(c) require the practitioner to pay a fine of not more than $30 000 to the National Board that registers the practitioner;

(d) suspend the practitioner's registration for a specified period;

(3) If the responsible tribunal decides to impose a condition on the practitioner's registration, the tribunal must also decide a review period for the condition.

(4) If the tribunal decides to cancel a person's registration under this Law or the person does not hold registration under this Law, the tribunal may also decide to -

(a) disqualify the person from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a specified period; or

(b) prohibit the person from using a specified title or providing a specified health service.

9 The Tribunal repeats what it stated in Medical Board of Australia and Myers [2014] WASAT 137 (S). The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is protective rather than punitive, and such protection runs to both the public and the profession (Craig v Medical Board of South Australia [2001] SASC 169; (2001) 79 SASR 545 at [41] (Craig); Re Maraj (a Legal Practitioner) (1995) 15 WAR 12 at 25 (Maraj); Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Love [2014] WASC 389 (Love) at [19]; Law Society of New South Wales v Foreman (1994) 34 NSWLR 408 (Foreman) at 440G­441A - B; Legal Profession Complaints Committee and in de Braekt [2013] WASAT 124 at [24]- [26]; New South Wales Bar Association v Hamman [1999] NSWCA 404 (Hamman) at [21] and [77]).

10 The appropriate sanction is to be considered at the time of the making of the sanction and not by reference to the date of the unprofessional acts (Legal Profession Complaints Committee and A Legal Practitioner [2013] WASAT 37 (S) (A Legal Practitioner (S)) at [23]; Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Segler [2014] WASC 159 (Segler) at [7]; A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society of NSW [2004] HCA l; [2004] HCA 1; (2004) 216 CLR 253 (A Solicitor [2004] NSW) at [15]; Love at [16]).

11 It is the practitioner's conduct that attracts any sanction (A Legal Practitioner (S) at [24]; Smith v New South Wales Bar Association [1992] HCA 36; (1992) 176 CLR 256 at 267-268 and 271-272; A Solicitor [2004] NSW).

12 As the Tribunal explained in A Legal Practitioner (S) at [24]:

... [I]n determining the appropriate penalty, care needs to be taken that the penalty reflects the matters with which the practitioner is charged and not other conduct including the defence of the action by the practitioner which is ultimately held to be unsuccessful: Smith v New South Wales Bar Association [1992] HCA 36; (1992) 176 CLR 256 (Smith) at 267-268 and 271-272[.]

13 In determining an appropriate sanction, twelve matters may require consideration. Those matters are interrelated and are not mutually exclusive. The list of matters is not exhaustive. The twelve matters are:

1. any need to protect the public against further misconduct by the practitioner (Craig at [47]; Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Amsden [2014] WASAT 57 (S) (Amsden (S)) at [8]; Foreman at 440C; Hamman at [77]);
2. the need to protect the public through general deterrence of other practitioners from similar conduct (Jemielita v Medical Board of Western Australia (unreported, WASC Library No 920584, 13 November 1992) (Jemielita); Johnson at [103]; Hamman at [77]);
3. the need to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession by reinforcing high professional standard and denouncing transgressions and thereby articulating the high standards expected of the profession (Amsden (S) at [8]; Foreman at 444F; and Hamman at [77] and [79]), such that, even where there may be no need to deter a practitioner from repeating the conduct, the conduct is of such a nature that the Tribunal should give an emphatic indication of its disapproval (Craig at [64]; Johnson at [103]);
4. in the case of conduct involving misleading conduct, including dishonesty, whether the public and fellow practitioners can place reliance on the word of the practitioner (Johnson at [109]; Foreman at 445B-445G);
5. whether the practitioner has breached any:

1. Guidelines or Code of Conduct, issued by the relevant professional body; and

1. whether the practitioner has done so knowingly;
2. whether the practitioner's conduct demonstrated incompetence, and if so, to what level;
3. whether or not the incident was isolated such that the Tribunal can be satisfied of his or her worthiness or reliability for the future (Foreman at 442E-442G; New South Wales Bar Association v Evatt [1968] HCA 20; (1968) 117 CLR 177 at 183; Council of the Law Society (NSW) v A Solicitor [2002] NSWCA 62 (A Solicitor [2002] NSW) at [80]; Chamberlain v Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory [1993] FCA 527; (1993) 118 ALR 54 at 62 and 63);
4. the practitioner's disciplinary history (Legal Profession Complaints Committee v O'Halloran [2013] WASC 430 at [93]);
5. whether or not the practitioner understands the error of his ways, including an assessment of any remorse and insight (or a lack thereof) shown by the practitioner, since a practitioner who fails to understand the significance and consequences of misconduct is a risk to the community (Law Society of New South Wales v Walsh [1997] NSWCA 185 per Beazley JJA (Walsh); Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Lashansky [2007] WASC 211 (Lashansky) at [31]-[52] and (second) at [35]; Amsden (S) at [8]; Foreman at 444E; Love at [9]);

The practitioner's conduct of the defence and the veracity and candour of his testimony will often be the best evidence as to whether any mitigating circumstances, including remorse, reform, character change and subsequent good deeds, are to be accepted (A Legal Practitioner (S) at [24]; Barwick v Council of the Law Society of NSW [2004] NSWCA 32 at [108]­[109]; New South Wales Bar Association v Maddocks [1988] NSWCA 102).

Lack of remorse should not, in the absence of aggravating factors, be the predominate factor leading to a heavy sanction if otherwise a lighter sanction would be applied; Re H (a Barrister) [1981] 1 WLR 1257.

1. the desirability of making available to the public any special skills possessed by the practitioner;
2. the practitioner's personal circumstances at the time of the conduct and at the time of imposing the sanction. However, the weight given to personal circumstances cannot override the fundamental obligation of the Tribunal to provide appropriate protection of the public interest in the honesty and integrity of legal practitioners and in the maintenance of proper standards of legal practice (Love at [59]); and
3. The Tribunal may consider any other matters relevant to the practitioner's fitness to practise and other matters which may be regarded as aggravating the conduct or mitigating its seriousness (A Legal Practitioner (S) at [25]). In general, mitigating factors such as no previous misconduct or service to the profession are of considerably less significance than in the criminal process because the jurisdiction is protective not punitive (Walsh).

14 Where there is a choice of sanctions, the Tribunal will choose that sanction which maximises the protection of the public (Quinn v Law Institute of Victoria [2007] VSCA 122 at [31]).

15 The dominant purpose of the disciplinary regulation of the medical profession is the protection of the public by the maintenance of proper standards within the profession. Hence, the impact which an appropriate penalty would have upon a practitioner guilty of misconduct, and personal hardship to a practitioner, are necessarily secondary considerations (see Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Detata [2012] WASCA 2014 (Detata) at [47] and Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Masten [2011] WASC 71 at [29]; Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Leask [2010] WASAT 133 at [54]).

16 There are circumstances in which a 'global' approach to sanction, rather than the imposition of separate sanction for each unprofessional act, may be more appropriate in vocational disciplinary proceedings namely, where the facts of the case are so inextricably woven as to make it difficult to meet a clear standard of prescription (A Legal Practitioner (S) at [5]; Stirling v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] VSCA 374 at [72]­[75]).

17 Dr Veettill's conduct occurred over a number of days and involved one patient. It is appropriate to impose a global penalty having regard to Dr Veettill's overall conduct rather than isolating certain incidents and imposing separate penalties.

18 The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to cancel a practitioner's registration is exercised not for the purpose of punishing the practitioner concerned, but for the protection of the public and the reputation and standards of the medical profession: Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee v Thorpe [2008] WASC 9 at [43].

19 Where an order for cancellation of a practitioner's registration is contemplated, the ultimate question is whether the material demonstrates that the practitioner is not a fit and proper person to remain a medical practitioner: A Solicitor [2004] NSW at [15].

20 A practitioner is not a fit and proper person to be a registered practitioner and should be removed from the register where the unprofessional conduct is so serious that the practitioner is permanently or indefinitely unfit to practise (Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Howe (No 2) [2003] NSWADT 159 at [27]; Barristers' Board v Darveniza [2000] QCA 253; (2000) 112 A Crim R 438 (Darveniza) at [38]; Love at [17]-[18]; A Legal Practitioner (S) at [21]-[25]; Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Brickhill [2013] WASC 369 at [19]- [20] (Thomas JA, McMurdo P and White J agreeing); New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins [2001] NSWCA 284; (2001) 52 NSWLR 279 at [26]- [28]); Love at [17]­[18]).

21 Suspension is a less serious result and differs from cancellation of a practitioner's registration because suspension is for a specified limited period.

22 The proper use of suspension is in cases where the practitioner has fallen below the high standards to be expected of such a practitioner, but not in such a way as to indicate that he/she lacks the qualities of character which are the necessary attributes of a person entrusted with the responsibilities of a practitioner (A Legal Practitioner (S) at [26]; Re A Practitioner (1984) 36 SASR 590 at 593 per King CJ). That is, suspension is suitable where the Tribunal is satisfied that, upon completion of the period of suspension, the practitioner will be fit to resume practice (A Legal Practitioner (S) at [27]).

23 Dr Veettill graduated with a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery from the University of Calicut, India in 1989 and received his Masters degree in general medicine from the same institution in 2004.

24 After he graduated in 1989, Dr Veettill worked as a general medical practitioner whilst studying to specialise in adult internal medicine.

25 In 2006, Dr Veettill and his family migrated to Australia on a 457 visa, and he practised in Melbourne for 2½ years until he moved to Perth in 2009. He then worked at Royal Perth Hospital (RPH) for six years and with the Australian Locum Medical Service in 2012-2013, during which he attended over 5,000 home visits.

26 Dr Veettill became a member of the Royal Australian College of Physicians (RACP) as an Adult Medicine Basic Trainee. Dr Veettill completed all the requisite certified training time (36 months) and was studying for his written and clinical examinations at the time of the conduct.

27 Dr Veettill passed the RACP's written examination in March 2014 and was due to take his final clinical examinations in August 2014 in order to complete that training. As a result of the notification that led to this matter, he was unable to complete the examinations, and he is unlikely to be able to do so for the foreseeable future.

28 The notification was made by the Patient on 10 June 2014 and conditions were imposed upon Dr Veettill's registration on 18 June 2014. Those conditions were:

1. [Dr Veettill] is not to contact the patient involved in the notification at any time by any means.
2. [Dr Veettill] will not contact or meet with female patients outside of a clinical setting.
3. [Dr Veettill] may only practise within a hospital or private consulting rooms.
4. [Dr Veettill]:
   1. will not consult with, or treat, any female patients without an adult female chaperone, who is acceptable to the patient, present throughout the consultation or treatment; and
   2. must complete a log sheet for female patients consulted or treated in the form of the chaperone log provided by the Medical Board of Australia (the Board), which is to be countersigned by the chaperone in attendance, and submitted to the Board on a fortnightly basis, other than when completing his FRACP clinical examinations.
5. [Dr Veettill]:

1. must inform AHPRA of all of his employers and places of practice and any changes to such on an ongoing basis; 2. consents to AHPRA providing all of his employers and places of practice with a copy of the conditions of his registration; and

1. consents to his employer(s) reporting to AHPRA on his professional performance.
2. All costs associated with the conditions will be borne by [Dr Veettill].

29 Due to the imposition of conditions upon Dr Veettill's registration, Dr Veettill had to be redeployed by RPH to work on clinical projects. RPH advised that the cost of employing a nurse chaperone (which would be required if Dr Veettill was to continue in his clinical role) was prohibitive and that therefore Dr Veettill needed to be employed in a role which did not involve patient contact.

30 Dr Veettill was not allowed to undertake any clinical practice for in excess of seven months which will prevent him from applying for the RACP clinical examinations.

31 Dr Veettill practised medicine for approximately 25 years until June 2014, when the notification of these matters led to his ceasing to practise.

32 As a consequence of the conditions on his registration, Dr Veettill's employment contract with RPH which had been renewed annually for the last six years, was not renewed with RPH.

1). Is there a need to protect the public against further misconduct by Dr Veettill?

33 Trust is a fundamental aspect of the relationship between a patient and a medical practitioner. That trust is particularly important when a medical practitioner visits a patient at his or her home.

34 Dr Veettill's conduct and the circumstances in which it occurred are evidence of a need to protect the public against further misconduct by him.

2. Is there a need to protect the public through general deterrence of other practitioners?

35 There is a need for a strong penalty to protect the public from misconduct through general deterrence of other medical practitioners, particularly in the case of medical practitioners visiting a patient at his or her home, and particularly in the case of locums.

36 Locums often visit patients after hours. Generally, if a patient calls a locum after hours, it is because his or her regular doctor is unavailable and he or she is in distress.

37 Patients are often more vulnerable in their own home particularly if they live alone.

38 The public must feel sufficiently confident to call locum services after hours otherwise they may be exposed to unnecessary pain or distress or deterioration of their health if they wait until business hours.

3. Is there a need to protect the public by reinforcing high professional standards and denouncing transgressions?

39 Sexual assault is an anathema to the high professional standards expected of medical practitioners in order to protect the public. Any penalty must reflect the need to maintain medical practitioners' high professional standards.

40 The maintenance of professional boundaries is particularly important in this case. Had Dr Veettill not breached those boundaries by telephoning the patient and subsequently meeting her for a coffee and visiting her home, it is hard to imagine that the assault of 30 May 2014 would ever have occurred.

5. Breach of an Act, Regulations, Guidelines or Code of Conduct

42 Dr Veettill's sexual assault is potentially an offence under s 323 of the Criminal Code.

43 Dr Veettill has breached s 8.2 of the Good Medical Practice: A Code for Conduct for Doctors in Australia (July 2010 and 17 March 2014) and Sexual Boundaries: Guidelines for Doctors (28 October 2011), both of which were developed and approved by the Board for reference by the profession.

45 The incident of professional misconduct was isolated. The other conduct stretched over two separate time periods.

46 There have been no previous adverse findings made against Dr Veettill. Therefore, prior to the conduct which resulted in the adverse finding by the Tribunal in this proceeding, he had practised medicine with a completely unblemished disciplinary record for approximately 24 years, eight of them in Australia.

9. Whether or not Dr Veettill understands the error of his ways, including an assessment of any remorse and insight (or a lack thereof) shown by Dr Veettill

47 Dr Veettill had the right to have the allegations made against him tested fully at a hearing about whether the conduct was unprofessional conduct as a medical practitioner.

48 It is of concern that Dr Veettill lacks insight into his conduct, however, this is a matter to be considered in the light of all other matters.

10. Are there any special skills possessed of Dr Veettill?

49 Dr Veettill does not possess any special skills that would influence any penalty to be imposed.

50 At the time of the conduct, Dr Veettill had two jobs and was studying for examinations which are extremely difficult. It is a reasonable inference that he was under significant stress. While the practitioner's conduct is not directly relevant to the protection of the public, it is relevant to whether the conduct is likely to be repeated. Having regard to Dr Veettill's previous history, the Tribunal is satisfied that if Dr Veettill does not again place himself in stressful circumstances, it is far less likely that the conduct would be repeated.

12. Are there any other matters related to Dr Veettill's fitness to practise?

52 The Tribunal is satisfied that although Dr Veettill has fallen below the high standards to be expected of such a practitioner, he has not done in such a way as to indicate that he lacks the qualities of character which are the necessary attributes of a person entrusted with the responsibilities of a practitioner. The Board is satisfied that although Dr Veettill's conduct was serious, having regard to his previous history, it should be treated as an isolated incident influenced by the stressful situation in which he placed himself. The Tribunal is satisfied that, upon completion of the period of suspension, Dr Veettill will be fit to resume practice.

53 The Tribunal notes that Dr Veettill has effectively been suspended since June 2014. The Tribunal is also satisfied that an additional period of 12 months is sufficient to protect the public. The conditions imposed on 18 June 2014 should apply to Dr Veettill's 12 months of practice after his suspension ends.

54 Dr Veettill is to pay the Board's costs and disbursements at the scale provided for as if the proceedings had been in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

1. Dr Premanandan Vayal Veettill is reprimanded.
2. Pursuant to s 192(d) of the Schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010, Dr Premanandan Vayal Veettill's registration is suspended for a period of 12 months from 1 March 2016.
3. Pursuant to s 196(2)(b) of the Schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010, Dr Premanandan Vayal Veettill's registration from 1 March 2017 to 1 March 2018 is subject to the following conditions:

(a) Dr Veettill will not contact or meet with female patients outside of a clinical setting;

(b) Dr Veettill may only practise within a hospital or private consulting rooms;

(i) will not consult with, or treat, any female patients without an adult female chaperone, who is acceptable to the patient, present throughout the consultation or treatment; and

(ii) must complete a log sheet for female patients consulted or treated in the form of the chaperone log provided by the Medical Board of Australia, which is to be countersigned by the chaperone in attendance, and submitted to the Medical Board of Australia on a fortnightly basis, other than when completing his clinical examinations at the Royal Australian College of Physicians .

(i) must inform the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency of all of his employers and places of practice and any changes to such on an ongoing basis;

(ii) consents to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency providing all of his employers and places of practice with a copy of the conditions on his registration; and

(iii) consents to his employer(s) reporting to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency on his professional performance.

1. Dr Premanandan Vayal Veettill is to pay the Medical Board of Australia's costs and disbursements at the scale provided for as if the proceedings had been in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, to be assessed if not agreed.

I certify that this and the preceding [54] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

___________________________________