The Medical Board of Australia referred the following allegations to the Tribunal.

By reason of his criminal convictions under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 on 28 August 2015, Dr Pralay Mazumdar engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of professional misconduct in paragraphs (a) and/or (b) of s 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (National Law).

In the period between on or about 10 September 2013 until on or about 17 September 2013, Dr Pralay Mazumdar engaged in unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the definition of unprofessional conduct in paragraph (a) of s 5 of the National Law in that he did not provide notice to the Medical Board of Australia that, on 10 September 2013, his clinical privileges at the St John of God Pinelodge Clinic had been suspended, such notice being required under s 130(1) of the National Law.

1. Pursuant to s 196(1) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (National Law), the Tribunal makes the following findings:
   1. In relation to Allegation One, Dr Pralay Mazumdar has engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of professional misconduct in s 5 of the National Law;
   2. In relation to Allegation Two, Dr Pralay Mazumdar has engaged in unprofessional conduct within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition of unprofessional conduct in s 5 of the National Law
2. Pursuant to s 196(2) of the National Law, the Tribunal makes the following determinations:

1. Pursuant to s 196(2)(a), Dr Pralay Mazumdar is reprimanded; 2. Pursuant to s 196(2)(d), the medical registration of Dr Pralay Mazumdar is suspended for a period of 6 calendar months commencing on 1 January 2018, PROVIDED HOWEVER that Dr Pralay Mazumdar shall not be eligible to return to practise unless and until he has completed, to the satisfaction of the Medical Board of Australia (the Board), the program of education and provision of reports pursuant to the imposition of conditions on his registration under paragraph (c) below;

1. Pursuant to s 196(2)(b) the medical registration of Dr Pralay Mazumdar (the Practitioner) shall be subject to the following conditions:

1. The Practitioner must undertake and successfully complete one-on-one education, with an educator approved by the Board, in relation to the following topics: 1. the principles of ethical professional conduct, including in relation to: 1. billing practices with respect to third party providers including the Victorian Workcover Authority, the Transport Accident Commission and Medicare; and 2. the requirement for professional behaviour as required by s 8 of the Good Medical Practice: A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia, including the requirement to be honest and not misleading in preparing documentation as required by sub-s 8.8; 2. the consequences of unethical professional conduct, including in relation to unethical billing practices and the adverse impact on the reputation of the medical profession and patient trust. 2. The education must be of a minimum of six hours in duration. 3. The Practitioner must complete the education within six months of the notice of the Board's approval of the educator and education plan. 4. Within 14 days of notice of the imposition of these conditions, the Practitioner must, on the approved form (HPN11): 1. nominate a person(s) to be approved by the Board to act as educator, or alternatively, if the Practitioner is unable to identify an appropriate nominee, he may request that the Board appoint an approved educator, and 2. provide acknowledgement that AHPRA will obtain a report from the approved educator at the conclusion of the education, including the educator's opinion as to whether the Practitioner has satisfactorily participated in and understood the education topics as set out in condition 1. 5. The Practitioner must ensure that the nomination of an educator is accompanied by acknowledgement, on the approved form (HPNA11), from the nominated educator and by an education plan outlining the form the education will take and how the topics of the education will be addressed. 6. Within 30 days of the completion of the education, the Practitioner is to provide a report demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the Board, that the Practitioner has reflected on the issues that gave rise to this condition requiring they undertake education and how the Practitioner will incorporate the lessons learnt in the education into the Practitioner's practice.

1. Following the Practitioner's return to practise, the Practitioner must be mentored by another registered health practitioner in relation to the Practitioner's practise of the profession, including in relation to:
   1. the Practitioner's conduct that gave rise to the conditions; and
   2. the steps the Practitioner has and is taking to incorporate the lessons he has learnt, including during the education and mentoring, into his practise of the profession including with respect to his billing practices.

For the purposes of this condition, 'mentoring' is defined as a relationship in which a skilled registered practitioner (the mentor) helps to guide the professional development of another practitioner.

1. The mentoring must be conducted on a monthly basis, with each session being of at least one hour in duration, occurring over a 12 month period.
2. Within 14 days of his return to practise, the Practitioner must, on the approved form (HPN16), nominate a person(s) to be approved by the Board to act as mentor.
3. The Practitioner must ensure that the nomination of a mentor is accompanied by acknowledgement, on the approved form (HPNA16), from the nominated person, and a written mentoring plan outlining the form the mentoring will take and the proposed schedule for the mentoring.

11A. Within 14 days of his return to practise, the Practitioner must provide to AHPRA, on the approved form (HP16), acknowledgement that AHPRA may seek reports from the approved mentor on any or all of the following occasions:

1. following each monthly mentoring session,
2. at the conclusion of the mentoring relationship in order to confirm whether or not the Practitioner has satisfactorily participated in the mentoring and to advise as to the outcomes of the mentoring,

1. whenever the mentor has a concern or becomes aware of a concern regarding the Practitioner's conduct or professional performance, and

1. when otherwise requested by AHPRA or the Board.

11B. In the event an approved mentor is no longer willing or able to provide the mentoring required, the Practitioner is to provide a new nomination in the same terms as previous nominations. Such nomination must be made by the Practitioner within 14 days of becoming aware of the termination of the mentoring relationship.

1. Within 30 days of the conclusion of the mentoring the Practitioner must provide a report demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the Board, that the Practitioner has reflected on the issues that gave rise to the conditions and outlining how the Practitioner has incorporated the lessons learnt in the education and mentoring into his practice.

1. Following the Practitioner's return to practise, the Practitioner must submit to audits of his practice, including any supporting records, on a frequency of once every four months over a 12 month period, by permitting an auditor (the auditor) approved by the Board to attend any and all places of practise (public and private) for the purpose of the audits and by permitting the auditor to provide reports in relation to the findings of the audits. The audits and the audit reports are to focus on the Practitioner's billing practices and must include, a sample of the Practitioner's billing and supporting records.
2. Within 14 days of his return to practise, the Practitioner must provide to AHPRA:

1. nomination, on the approved form (HPN12), of an auditor(s) to be approved by the Board, 2. acknowledgement, on the approved form (HPN12), that AHPRA will seek reports from the approved auditor at the conclusion of each audit, and

1. acknowledgement, on the approved form (HPNA12), from the nominated auditor.
2. The Practitioner must ensure that the nomination of an auditor(s), is accompanied by a written audit plan, from the approved auditor, outlining the form the audits will take in relation to the Practitioner's billing practices. The audits will take the form determined by the auditor.
3. In the event an approved auditor is no longer willing or able to provide the audits required, the Practitioner must notify AHPRA within 14 days of becoming aware of this and provide a new nomination of a proposed auditor(s) to the Board in the same terms as the previous nomination of auditor(s).

1. Within 14 days of notice of the imposition of these conditions, the Practitioner must provide to AHPRA, on the approved form (HPC), the contact details of a senior person, such as the Director of Medical Services, Director of Nursing, Senior Practice Manager, Senior Manager, Senior Partner, Proprietor, Owner, or equivalent (the senior person) at each current place of practise. In providing this form, the Practitioner acknowledges that:
   1. AHPRA will contact the senior person and provide them with a copy of the conditions on the Practitioner's registration or confirm that the senior person has received a copy of the conditions from the Practitioner, and
   2. The Practitioner will be required to provide the same form:
      1. within seven days of the commencement of practise at each and every subsequent place of practice, and
      2. within seven days of each and every notice of any subsequent alteration of these conditions.
2. All costs associated with compliance with these conditions are at the Practitioner's own expense.
3. Pursuant to s 193(3) of the National Law, the review period for the above conditions is 19 months.

1. On 15 December 2016, in accordance with s 193(1) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (National Law), the Board referred this matter to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) for hearing.
2. The parties reached an agreement on a statement of facts which was filed on 29 August 2017.
3. The parties also agreed on a joint submission as to an appropriate determination by the Tribunal.

1. The agreed facts are as follows:
   • (a) Dr Mazumdar is registered as a medical practitioner with specialist registration in psychiatry. He was first registered on 4 December 1998.
   • (b) On 11 September 2013, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) received a mandatory notification (First Notification) from Mr Graham Cadd, the Chief Executive Officer and Director of Nursing at the St John of God Pinelodge Clinic (Clinic), regarding Dr Mazumdar's professional conduct, which was alleged to have constituted 'systematic fraudulent billing of many patients'. Mr Cadd advised that, on 10 September 2013, the Clinic had suspended Dr Mazumdar's clinical privileges.
   • (c) On 7 November 2013, the Board decided to investigate Dr Mazumdar's conduct pursuant to s 160 of the National Law. However, in that same month AHPRA placed its investigation on hold upon receipt of information that the Victorian WorkCover Authority (VWA) was conducting an investigation into Dr Mazumdar's billing.
   • (d) The VWA's investigation ultimately led to charges against Dr Mazumdar, heard at the Magistrates' Court at Ringwood on 11 December 2014, at which time Dr Mazumdar pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, the following offences:
     1. fraudulently obtaining payments under s 248 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (AC Act) (two charges);
     2. knowingly providing false information under s 249(2) of the AC Act (two charges); and
     3. providing false or misleading information under s 249 of the AC Act (two charges).
   • (e) In brief summary, Dr Mazumdar's offending involved systematic overcharging of the VWA including fraudulently obtaining payments on 114 occasions, including payments as a result of making false representations relating to patients, over an extended period between 5 March 2012 and 9 September 2013. The total amount involved was $44,539.78. The offending involved, among other things:
     • seeing patients for consultations of less than 45 minutes and charging those consultations as though they were for periods of 45 minutes or longer;
     • billing for both the relevant patient attending a consultation and any family members who attended as support persons;
     • billing for interpreters as a family member; and
     • extending the stay of inpatients, without clinical need, for financial gain.
   • (f) On 11 December 2014, Dr Mazumdar was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, wholly suspended for nine months, and was fined $5,000. Further, Dr Mazumdar of his own volition paid restitution of $44,539.78, plus costs.
   • (g) Dr Mazumdar appealed the sentence to the County Court. The appeal proceeded on 28 August 2015. The Court again convicted Dr Mazumdar in respect of the same six charges and the fine remained, although the suspended prison sentence of the Magistrates' Court was set aside and a Community Corrections Order for two years, including 350 hours of community service, was imposed instead. The Court also made a costs order. In sentencing, his Honour Judge Tinney commented in relation to the offending that 'Really, there is no explanation placed before me, which leaves the obvious explanation and the only one remaining in my judgment. That is greed'. The judge observed that Dr Mazumdar's moral culpability in his offending was 'extremely high'. The judge accepted that there was a 'very low risk of re-offence' by Dr Mazumdar.
   • (h) On 24 September 2015, AHPRA received a notification (Second Notification) from the VWA's Mr Paul Fowler regarding Dr Mazumdar's convictions, in particular concerning details of his sentencing at first instance in the Magistrates' Court and his subsequent sentence on appeal to the County Court.
   • (i) On 10 December 2015, the Board decided to deal with the First Notification and the Second Notification together, pursuant to s 153 of the National Law.
   • (j) On 18 August 2016, the Board decided to refer the matter of Dr Mazumdar's professional conduct to the Tribunal pursuant to s 193 of the National Law.

1. The first allegation before the Tribunal is that, by reason of his criminal convictions under the AC Act on 28 August 2015, Dr Mazumdar engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of professional misconduct in paragraphs (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of s 5 of the National Law and/or unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the definition of unprofessional conduct in paragraph (c) of s 5.
2. The parties jointly submit that, in relation to the first allegation, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to make a finding that Dr Mazumdar has engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of professional misconduct in s 5 of the National Law. The Board no longer presses a finding in respect of paragraph (c) and at the hearing sought leave to amend the Notice of Allegations accordingly.[1]
3. The definition of professional misconduct in paragraph (a) refers to unprofessional conduct by the practitioner that amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience. Dr Mazumdar's offending constitutes such professional misconduct under paragraph (a).
4. The definition of professional misconduct in paragraph (b) refers to more than one instance of unprofessional conduct that, when considered together amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience. The multiple instances of Dr Mazumdar's offending constitute such professional misconduct under paragraph (b).

1. The second allegation is that, in the period between on or about 10 September 2013 until on or about 17 September 2013, Dr Mazumdar engaged in unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the definition of unprofessional conduct in paragraph (a) of s 5 in that he did not provide notice to the Board that, on 10 September 2013, his clinical privileges at the Clinic had been suspended, such notice being required under s 130(1) of the National Law.
2. Section 130(1) of the National Law provides that a registered health practitioner must give the Board written notice within 7 days after becoming aware that a 'relevant event' has occurred. A 'relevant event' includes, under s 130(3)(a)(iv), where a practitioner's right to practise at a hospital or another facility at which health services are provided is withdrawn or restricted because of the practitioner's conduct, among other things.
3. The definition of unprofessional conduct in paragraph (a) refers to a contravention by the practitioner of the National Law, which Dr Mazumdar contravened by failing to provide the notice required under s 130(1).
4. The parties jointly submit that, in relation to the second allegation, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to make a finding that Dr Mazumdar has engaged in unprofessional conduct within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition of unprofessional conduct in s 5 of the National Law.

1. The law relating to the making of determinations was extensively considered and summarised in Medical Board of Australia v Jansz[2] and Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria v Naik[3] and can be summarised as follows:
   • (a) the purpose of the imposition of determinations is to protect the public;
   • (b) determinations are intended to maintain proper ethical and professional standards for the protection of the public and also for the protection of the profession in the sense of maintaining stature and integrity in the eyes of the public;
   • (c) determinations should in no way be punitive;
   • (d) the objectives of determinations can be achieved by specific deterrence, that is, the deterrence of the person concerned from further inappropriate conduct; by general deterrence, that is, the deterrence of other practitioners minded to conduct themselves similarly; and by facilitation of rehabilitation on the part of the practitioner;
   • (e) personal matters such as shame, personal ordeal, and financial difficulty are of little relevance save insofar as they contribute to the specific deterrence of the practitioner;
   • (f) the likelihood of recidivism, or, put another way, an assessment of the ongoing risk posed by the practitioner, should be central to the imposition of a determination;
   • (g) the degree to which the practitioner has acquired insight into his or her conduct is relevant to the assessment of the continuing risk posed by the practitioner;
   • (h) insight can include as an understanding of the nature of the conduct, an acceptance that the conduct was wrong, an appreciation of why the practitioner engaged in that conduct, empathy with the consequences, and/or a willingness to take measures to identify risk factors and to do that which is necessary to avoid further transgressions; and
   • (i) any form of official censure is of consequence. It has been observed by the Courts that a reprimand is a serious matter for a professional person and should not be considered a 'slap over the wrist'.[4]

1. Dr Mazumdar concedes that his registration must be suspended to reflect general deterrence.
2. The parties jointly submit that the period of suspension should be for six months, commencing from a time to be determined by the Tribunal.
3. A suspension of six months would be within the range of appropriate determinations made by the Tribunal in similar matters.
4. In Psychology Board of Australia v Nguyen,[5] the Tribunal suspended the registration of a psychologist for three months. Ms Nguyen had been convicted of obtaining financial advantage by deception in relation to her fraudulent billing of both the VWA and the TAC of a combined amount of more than $64,000 over a period of three years. It is apparent that Ms Nguyen benefitted from the consideration that she was one of few Vietnamese speaking psychologists in Victoria, that 90% of her clients were Vietnamese and that she provided an important service to the Vietnamese community that could not be easily replaced.
5. Similarly, a three month suspension was imposed by the Tribunal in Osteopathy Board of Australia v Rowe.[6] This matter also involved convictions for multiple instances of fraudulent billing of the VWA and TAC, although the amounts involved ($10,089 from VWA and $3,970 from TAC) were less than in the case Dr Mazumdar. The Tribunal concluded that the suspension was necessary for the purposes of specific and general deterrence, protection of the reputation of the profession and having regard to the nature and gravity of the misconduct.
6. In Chen v Chiropractors Registration Board of Victoria,[7] the Tribunal suspended the practitioner's registration for five months following a finding of unprofessional conduct of a serious nature in respect of significant excessive servicing of WorkCover patients and inadequate note taking. The Tribunal's decision was made on review of a suspension of eight months that had been imposed by the Board.
7. At the other end, in the matter of Medical Board of Australia v Bajpe,[8] the Tribunal decided to cancel the registration of a medical practitioner who, among other things, had been found guilty of multiple counts of obtaining property by deception relating to Medicare fraud. This case may be distinguished from that of Dr Mazumdar in that Dr Bajpe, unlike Dr Mazumdar, contested all charges and was observed by the Judge to have accepted no responsibility and reflected no remorse or contrition for his offending, but rather blamed others. Contrary to that, in the case of Dr Mazumdar, the sentencing remarks[9] in the County Court indicate that the judge was prepared to find in Dr Mazumdar a level of remorse, although he did not judge it to be complete.
8. The observations of the County Court in Dr Mazumdar's appeal[10] are equally apposite for this Tribunal, albeit that the appropriate determination is not designed to punish but rather to protect:

'This court has to send a message loud and clear to other practitioners, be they psychiatrists or doctors, or even allied health care professionals working within these schemes that take the word of a practitioner. That trust not be and cannot be breached, and if it is, there is a substantial punishment awaiting those who take those criminal steps.'

1. The parties further submit that Dr Mazumdar should be reprimanded.
2. As an official censure, a reprimand will assist in deterrence and thereby protect the public.

1. Finally, the parties submit that conditions of the following nature should be imposed upon Dr Mazumdar's registration:
   • (a) during the period of suspension, Dr Mazumdar is to complete a program of education, as approved by the Board, in respect of the principles of ethical conduct to ensure that Dr Mazumdar is made aware of the impact on the public of how he practised, in terms of how such conduct reflects on the medical profession and how it impacts patient trust, following the completion of which Dr Mazumdar is to provide a reflective report to the Board together with a report from the educator;
   • (b) following Dr Mazumdar's resumption of practise after suspension, Dr Mazumdar is to be mentored by another registered psychiatrist approved by the Board for a period of 12 months to provide Dr Mazumdar with support and guidance in relation to his practise of the profession so as to ensure that the way Dr Mazumdar practises has been suitably revised, during which period the Board will seek reports from the mentor as to Dr Mazumdar's functioning and progress in his practise of the profession; and
   • (c) over the same period of 12 months, there are to be three audits of Dr Mazumdar's billing and patient records conducted by a practitioner approved by the Board for the purposes of conducting the audits and reporting to the Board, the purpose of which is to ensure that Dr Mazumdar has suitably revised the way he practises and to protect the public from the repetition of his professional misconduct.
2. By imposing such conditions upon Dr Mazumdar's registration, the Tribunal's determination will further assist in protecting the public, including by maintaining the standards of the profession.
3. The above Statement of Agreed Facts and Joint Submissions of the parties have been set out in full, as filed, subject only to minor changes as to formatting.
4. The Tribunal accepts that the Statement of Agreed Facts fairly represents the evidence otherwise relied upon by the Board in support of the Allegations.
5. The Tribunal further accepts that the parties' joint submission fairly summarizes the law relating to determinations. Furthermore, all of the matters listed are relevant to and will guide the Tribunal in making its determination in this matter.
6. In regard to the prior cases relied upon by the parties in their joint submission, the Tribunal acknowledges the importance of preserving a parity between determinations in different cases, to the extent warranted by similar offending and factual circumstances. However, the Tribunal is not slavishly bound to follow earlier determinations but must make an objective assessment of all the evidence before it in a particular case. Every case is necessarily different. Furthermore, the importance given to certain facts in a particular case will vary according to the totality of evidence.
7. The key facts influencing the Tribunal's determination in this matter will be addressed further below.

1. The Notice of Allegations contains allegations relating to the professional conduct of Dr Mazumdar occurring on 28 August 2015, on which date Dr Mazumdar was found guilty and convicted in the County Court of offences of fraudulently obtaining payments under s 248 of the AC Act, knowingly providing false information under s 249(2) of the AC Act and providing false or misleading information under s 249(1) of the AC Act.
2. The convictions referred to above occurred after the National Law came into effect on 1 July 2010. The National Law therefore applies.
3. Section 193(1)(a)(i) relevantly provides:

A National Board must refer a matter about a registered health practitioner ... to a responsible tribunal if ... for a registered health practitioner, the Board reasonably believes, based on a notification or for any other reason ... the practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct ...

1. Consequently, the Tribunal may hear and determine the allegations presently before it. The Tribunal may make the findings and determinations available to it under the National Law.

1. For the purpose of the current referral, it is open to the Tribunal to make the following findings pursuant to s 196(1):
   • (a) Dr Mazumdar has no case to answer and no further action is to be taken in relation to the matter; or
   • (b) one or both of the following:
     1. Dr Mazumdar has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct as defined in s 5 of the National Law (s 196(1)(b)(ii));
     2. Dr Mazumdar has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct as defined in s 5 of the National Law (s 196(1)(b)(iii)).

1. Where the Tribunal has made a decision pursuant to s 196(1)(b), the Tribunal may make one or more of the following determinations pursuant to s 196(2):
   • (a) Dr Mazumdar be cautioned or reprimanded (s 196(2)(a));
   • (b) Condition(s) be imposed on Dr Mazumdar's registration (s 196(2)(b));
   • (c) A fine of not more than $30,000 be imposed on Dr Mazumdar and made payable to the Board (s 196(2)(c));
   • (d) Dr Mazumdar's registration be suspended for a specific period (s 196(2)(d));
   • (e) Dr Mazumdar's registration be cancelled (s 196(2)(e)).
2. If the Tribunal decides to impose a condition on Dr Mazumdar's registration, pursuant to s 196(2)(b), it must also decide a review period for the condition (s 196(3)).
3. If the Tribunal decides to cancel Dr Mazumdar's registration pursuant to s 196(2)(e), it may also decide to:
   • (a) Disqualify Dr Mazumdar from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a specified period (s 196(4)(a)); or
   • (b) Prohibit Dr Mazumdar from using a specified title or providing a specified health service (s 196(4)(b)).

1. The Tribunal notes that the Board does not seek a direction pursuant to s 146(4)(b) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Act 1998 (Vic) that inspection of the file in this matter be limited to the parties to the proceeding.

1. Counsel's submissions on behalf of Dr Mazumdar are summarized as follows:
2. First, Dr Mazumdar concedes that his breaches are serious, and that consequently his registration must be suspended for a period of six months, and then only resume on a conditional basis for at least the next twelve months, to reflect general deterrence.
3. In the Tribunals' view, for reasons indicated further below, a suspension of registration for at least six months, followed by conditional registration for a further period is clearly warranted.
4. Secondly, Counsel sought to place the serious professional misconduct in the following context:
   • (a) The overcharging incidents in Allegation One (A)(aa) occurred amongst a case load where Dr Mazumdar was treating an average of about 3000 outpatients per year, so it was by no means widespread;
   • (b) Similarly, in relation to the four inpatients who were the subject of Allegations One (B)(bb) and (C)(cc), he treated between 900 and 1,000 inpatients on an annual basis at this stage, so these breaches were not widespread either; and
   • (c) He was ignorant of his reporting obligation in relation to Allegation Two, rather than deliberately hiding the fact. To his own detriment, his case was high profile and notorious, such that it did not occur to him that the Board was not on notice about the result.
5. In the Tribunal's view, none of the above matters constitute a mitigating circumstance or provide an explanation for the relevant misconduct. While there is no question that the volume of offending could have been worse, the number of instances when overcharging was committed were still significant, and were committed in a sustained, conscious and deliberate manner. Furthermore, it is a grave and inexcusable admission for a most senior and experienced specialist not to be aware of his reporting obligations.
6. Thirdly, Dr Mazumdar has provided reports from his treating Psychiatrist Dr. Pring; and a written apology for his misconduct.
7. Dr Mazumdar first consulted his treating psychiatrist Dr Pring on 20 January 2015 and has continued consultations initially every 2-4 weeks and currently usually monthly. Dr Pring reports that he treated Dr Mazumdar for an Adjustment Disorder of depressed type. Dr Pring provided psychotherapy, prescribed anti-depressant medication and counselling in relation to deficiencies in his practice. Dr Pring further reports that Dr Mazumdar appears:[11]

... to have implemented a cautious approach to billing, where he takes full responsibility for the processes being of a high standard, and correct according to Medicare requirements...I believe that his depression is likely to gradually subside over the coming five years, as the consequences of his actions hopefully become less severe and his own implementation of more prudent billing practice shows that he is practising well.

1. In his written apology, Dr Mazumdar states in part:

The regular educational sessions and training, mentoring by a Psychiatrist, record keeping of the billing system and its audit and discussions with Consultants in my Peer Review Group is ongoing and on a regular basis. I am also professionally seeing a psychiatrist on a regular basis and receiving therapy and medication.

1. The Tribunal acknowledges the comprehensive apology made by Dr Mazumdar and the positive steps which he has taken, which is at least some indication of both his recognition of his misconduct and acceptance of responsibility for it.
2. Fourthly, there is evidence that Dr Mazumdar has practised extensively in country Victoria, thus seeking to meet a significant need for psychiatric services. Many of his referees attest to the continuing need for psychiatrists who are prepared to practise in rural areas. Dr Mazumdar has confirmed his intention, at the expiration of any period of suspension, to continue to serve patients in remote rural communities.
3. Fifthly, Professor Singh,[12] Dr Dharwadkar[13] and Dr Das[14] each provided written references as well as giving evidence before the Tribunal in support of Dr Mazumdar.
4. Professor Bruce Singh, Consultant Psychiatrist, has known Dr Mazumdar professionally since the late 1990's when he was head of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Melbourne and Dr Mazumdar was head of Community Services in Mildura, where Dr Singh attended to provide professional development. Dr Singh was impressed by Dr Mazumdar's integrity and commitment to the profession and his willingness to work in the rural community.
5. Dr Mazumdar contacted Dr Singh when he was being investigated by the VWA and initially expressed that he had been 'hard done by'. In subsequent conversations, Dr Mazumdar came to realize the seriousness of his misconduct and accepted that he had made 'errors of judgement'.
6. Dr Singh expressed confidence that Dr Mazumdar has accepted the proposed conditions to his registration and recognizes the need for peer review, professional development and mentoring. Dr Singh described Dr Mazumdar as a good psychiatrist with an excellent reputation and still has more to offer.
7. Dr Nitin Dharwadkar, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, has known Dr Mazumdar for about 12 years, initially as a colleague at workshops and subsequently as a friend and member of the same Peer Review Group, where they would have discussions about practise and diagnostic issues.
8. Dr Dharwadkar first learnt of the offending shortly after the notification from the VWA. Dr Mazumdar was 'still in shock, disbelief and denial' but finally accepted what had happened and consistently expressed remorse. He has witnessed the effect upon Dr Mazumdar at many levels: the need for psychotherapy and treatment; the adverse impact upon his family; professional humiliation and withdrawal of practice privileges; and loss of self-esteem.
9. Dr Dharwadkar described Dr Mazumdar as extremely professional, highly regarded amongst his peers and having provided an invaluable psychiatric service to the rural community. Dr Dharwadkar considered that he is well motivated to comply with all conditions placed upon his registration. He was aware that Dr Mazumdar had already undertaken courses in billing and professional mentoring.
10. Dr Hillol Das, Consultant Psychiatrist, has known Dr Mazumdar for more than 15 years, initially as a colleague and later as a 'dear friend'. They worked together at Pinelodge Clinic and also attended the same Peer Review Group.
11. Dr Das described Dr Mazumdar's initial response to the investigation in similar terms to Dr Dharwadkar, namely shock, disbelief and denial. It took Dr Das some time to discover what had happened. He met approximately monthly with Dr Mazumdar and eventually his attitude changed and he came to a 'complete acceptance and responsibility to do everything possible'.
12. Dr Das described Dr Mazumdar as 'immensely valuable to the profession and his patients' and the only colleague prepared to travel to the country throughout his career.
13. Sixthly, Counsel referred to further support for the joint agreed disposition in the material in the Tribunal book, namely:
    • (a) Reports of treating psychiatrist, Dr. Bill Pring dated 23 October 2017, 20 April 2017 and 23 August 2015;[15]
    • (b) Receipts for restitution, fines and costs totalling just under $75,000;[16]
    • (c) Certificate of Completion and Instructor's notes of the Respondent's work with Community Corrections Victoria;[17]
    • (d) Instructor's notes of the Respondent's work history;[18]
    • (e) Rural PAYG Locum Schedules for Dubbo, Wollongong and Port Macquarie Hospitals in 2016 and 2017;[19]
    • (f) RANZCP Position Statement 65, Rural Psychiatry, January 2015;[20]
    • (g) Character references and letters of support from:
      1. Professor Bruce Singh, consultant psychiatrist, dated 13 April 2017;[21]
      2. Dr Nitin Dharwadkar, consultant psychiatrist, dated 21 April 2017;[22]
      3. Dr Hillol Das, consultant psychiatrist, dated 8 April 2017;[23]
      4. Dr Nagalingam Mahalingam, consultant psychiatrist, dated 12 April 2017;[24]
      5. Managing Director Alex Niazov, Bairnsdale Family Clinic, dated 21 April 2017;[25]
      6. Acting Clinical Director Wael Wahaib, Shellharbour Hospital, Illawarra, dated 6 April 2017;[26]
      7. Dr Leong Tang, Senior General Practitioner, Bairnsdale Family Clinic, dated 5 April 2017;[27]
      8. Dr Jai Kaushik, General Practitioner, Bairnsdale Family Clinic, dated 20 April 2017;[28]
      9. Dr Samuel O. Joyalemi, consultant psychiatrist, dated 20 April 2017;[29] and
      10. Dr Anna Mogilevski, consultant psychiatrist, dated 18 March 2017.[30]
14. The Tribunal acknowledges that the oral evidence and above mentioned material provides strong evidence that Dr Mazumdar is a respected and valued practitioner with very good prospects for a continued contribution to his profession and patients.
15. Seventhly, the Tribunal accepts that Dr Mazumdar:
    • (a) has no prior disciplinary record;
    • (b) is otherwise of good personal character and professional reputation;
    • (c) pleaded guilty in this disciplinary proceeding at the earliest opportunity;
    • (d) has made full restitution for the offending;
    • (e) voluntarily surrendered his VWA provider registration;
    • (f) has been consequently dismissed or terminated from various prestigious positions, with the accompanying reputational and financial losses;
    • (g) has completed his 350 hour community based corrections order by the date of the VCAT compulsory conference hearing;
    • (h) has continued to provide psychiatric services to remote rural and indigenous communities;
    • (i) has expressed remorse and openly discussed his own failings with his peers;
    • (j) has suffered a depressive disorder and requires ongoing psychotherapy and counselling; and
    • (k) has engaged in voluntary mentoring with Dr Mahalingam.

1. The Tribunal acknowledges that Dr Mazumdar is now 63 years of age, with 38 years accumulated clinical experience (including 19 years in Australia). He comes before the Tribunal with no prior disciplinary or regulatory record.
2. The Allegations do not reflect upon his professional expertise to diagnose, counsel and treat patients per se. In this regard, his professional colleagues have provided a strong endorsement.
3. However, the criminal charges to which he pleaded guilty and are now the bases of Allegation One, reflect serious dishonest conduct motivated by greed and opportunity; and the misconduct underlying Allegation Two, reflects a serious avoidance of responsibility and professional obligations owed to the regulatory authority. The misconduct would be serious if committed by any practitioner at any stage of their career. In this case, it is especially grave having regard to the age, experience and reputation of Dr Mazumdar. He presented himself as someone of impeccable character; someone whom his peers might hold up as manifesting the highest ideals of the profession; someone whom his patients might be expected to trust implicitly. There is no question that these assumptions and expectations were utterly negated by the misconduct. The professional consequences which he has suffered have been entirely brought upon himself.
4. The Tribunal acknowledges that while the medical profession may have focused upon publicity associated with Dr Mazumdar's offending, the consequences to Dr Mazumdar of such publicity is not sufficient to satisfy the important objective of general deterrence in this case. Fraudulent conduct, as committed here, can be difficult and expensive to detect. It can often go unnoticed for a lengthy period of time. If such conduct became endemic it would seriously undermine the financial viability of the VWA, to the detriment of patients generally. Furthermore such conduct flouts the trust which patients, their families and associated health professionals are entitled to place in a medical practitioner. The medical profession as a whole is brought into disrepute. Accordingly, an appropriate determination must embody both condemnation of the offending conduct and a disincentive to similar offending, commensurate with the serious nature of the offending.
5. The Tribunal agrees that a period of suspension of registration is warranted. The initial dismissive response of Dr Mazumdar, as confirmed by the three witnesses who gave oral evidence, is troubling. Dr Mazumdar was certainly entitled to have the evidence clearly placed before him. However, his acknowledgement of wrongdoing and acceptance of responsibility was not immediate but has evolved.
6. The proposed period of six months' suspension is considered the minimum period appropriate and adequately gives recognition to the guilty pleas and expression of remorse.
7. The Tribunal also agrees that the proposed conditions to attach to Dr Mazumdar's medical registration are essential.
8. Dr Mazumdar has committed a most serious breach of medical ethics; he has demonstrated a reckless disregard for the consequences of his behaviour upon his patients, the VWA and the profession generally; and he has demonstrated an inability and/or indifference to maintaining proper patient records and billing procedures. All of these matters need to be comprehensively addressed in a re-education program approved by the Board.
9. Finally, the Tribunal agrees that Dr Mazumdar would benefit from professional mentoring and regular audits, for a period of at least twelve months. It is only in this context that any deficiencies in performance and procedures can be identified and rectified. These conditions will also serve the important function of preserving public confidence in the regulation of the medical profession where deficiencies in the performance of a medical practitioner are being addressed in a constructive and meaningful way.

1. The Tribunal is readily satisfied that the misconduct the subject of Allegation One constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of both definitions of professional misconduct in paragraphs (a) and (b) of s 5 of the National Law in that such conduct:
   • (a) amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and
   • (b) also amounts to more than one instance of unprofessional conduct that, when considered together, amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience.
2. Section 130(1) of the National Law provides that a registered health practitioner must give the Board written notice within seven days after becoming aware that a 'relevant event' has occurred. A 'relevant event' includes, under s 130(3)(a)(iv), where a practitioner's right to practise at a hospital or another facility at which health services are provided is withdrawn or restricted because of the practitioner's conduct, among other things. The obligation is clear and simple. The explanation offered by Dr Mazumdar, for failing to comply, is not credible. His is a mature aged, highly experienced specialist who bears a responsibility for knowing and acting upon such obligations, where required.
3. In the period between on or about 10 September 2013 until on or about 17 September 2013, Dr Mazumdar did not provide notice to the Board that, on 10 September 2013, his clinical privileges at the Clinic had been suspended, such notice being required under s 130(1) of the National Law.
4. The Tribunal is readily satisfied that the misconduct the subject of Allegation Two constitutes unprofessional conduct within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition of unprofessional conduct in s 5 of the National Law, in that such conduct amounts to conduct that is a contravention by him of the National Law, which Dr Mazumdar contravened by failing to provide the notice required under s 130(1).
5. In accordance with the above findings, Dr Mazumdar will be reprimanded; his medical registration suspended for six calendar months; and his registration made subject to certain conditions which include conditions for a period of 12 months following his return to practise.
6. The Tribunal is grateful for the revised form of conditions provided by the Board, as requested at the hearing and which have now been incorporated in the determinations.
7. The Tribunal is satisfied that the determinations, including some measure of ongoing monitoring, reflect an appropriate penalty and will reduce the likelihood of similar offending by Dr Mazumdar in future.
8. Pursuant to s 196(1) and s 196(2) of the National Law the Tribunal makes the Orders as to findings and determinations, as set out in detail at the commencement of these Reasons.

[1] That is, the Board does not submit that Dr Mazumdar is currently unfit to practise.

[2] [2011] VCAT 1026 at [358] - [373] (per Judge Jenkins and Dr Fabris and Dr Burge).

[3] [2009] VCAT 755 at [60] - [61] (per Coghlan DP, Dr Shanahan and Dr Clarke).

[4] Peeke v Medical Board of Victoria (unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, 19 January 1993).

[5] [2011] VCAT 2437.

[6] [2014] VCAT 867 16 May 2014.

[7] [2000] VCAT 1461 (31 July 2000).

[8] [2010] VCAT 1439 (25 August 2010).

[11] @TB242B; Report 23 October 2017, p 2.