A cardiologist who has suggested ways a patient might get aroused during an exam is facing a new hearing about her driving.
In May last year, a medical court ruled that Dr Nilesh Jagjivan’s behavior constituted professional misconduct, but did not impose any penalties.
However, the General Medical Council (GMC) successfully appealed to the High Court against the decision.
Dr Jagjivan will now face a new hearing before the Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal Service (MPTS).
This is the first appeal brought by the GMC under new powers that entered into force in December 2015.
It has also emerged that Dr Jagjivan faces further proceedings following an allegation of a new witness resulting from a consultation in April of this year.
Allowing the GMC’s appeal, Judge Sharp said: “In our judgment, the court’s failure to find that there was a sexual motivation for Dr. Jagjivan’s actions was wrong and unsustainable.”
She added, âWe reverse the court’s finding that the actions and allegations were not sexually motivated and substitute a finding that the actions were sexually motivated.
Dr Jagjivan first appeared before the MPTS following a complaint from a 27-year-old dance teacher known as Patient A about a consultation at Glenfield Hospital in Leicester October 22, 2013.
Her GP had referred her because of a history of chest palpitations and dizziness.
The court heard that while Patient A’s breasts were exposed, Dr Jagjivan, who is now a substitute consultant, asked her to perform 10 squats to increase blood flow to the heart.
He then suggested ways to get excited to increase his heart rate.
The court ruled that his behavior amounted to misconduct, but that he was not sexually motivated and did not impose any penalties.
President Dr Liz Ball said: âHe (the tribunal) has concluded as a conscientious and caring physician that the consequences of your failures which led to these proceedings and the tribunal’s findings of misconduct have had and will be. a deep effect.
The GMC medical record shows that a series of conditions were imposed on Dr Jagjivan on May 8 of this year.
He is not authorized âexcept, in a vital emergency, to carry out consultations with patients without the presence of a chaperone.
âHe must keep a diary detailing each case he has made a consultation with such a patient, which must be signed by the chaperone.
“He should keep a diary detailing every case he has consulted with such a patient in a life-threatening emergency, without a chaperone present.”
Dr Jagjivan should also inform the CME of his current position, including job title, location and manager.
He must also provide the contact details of any locum agency with which he is registered.