Charge Detail Summary

File Number: Med14/281D
Practitioner: Sharif Mohammad Abdul Fattah
Hearing Start Date:

Hearing End Date:

Hearing Town/City:
Hearing Location:
Charge Characteristics:

Examination - inadequate/inappropriate (Not Established)

Informed consent - inadequate
(Not Established)

Additional Orders:

Name Suppression to Practitioner

Practitioner granted interim suppression of name and identifying features


Name Suppression to Practitioner

Practitioner granted permanent suppression of name and identifying features


Name Suppression to Complainant and/or Patient and/or client

Patient and partner granted permanent suppression of name and identifying features


Name Suppression to Witness/s and/or Family of parties

Practitioners wife, place of practice and clinical director granted permanent suppression of name and identifying features


Name Suppression to Practitioner

Order revoking the earlier order for non-publication of the practitioner's name and identifying details




Appeal Order:


Full Decision 653med14281d.pdf

Appeal Decision:

Precis of Decision:

On 23 September 2014 the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) issued a decision on a charge of professional misconduct laid by the Director of Proceedings against Dr H, medical practitioner (the Doctor).
There were two particulars to the charge, one relating to an examination, the other to a failure to adequately document the examination.  The charge alleged there was an intimate examination of the Patient including genital and/or internal vaginal examination.

  • when examination was unnecessary given the Patient's presentation and/or the history that had been taken from her; and/or
  • without first obtaining informed consent of the Patient to the nature and/or extent of the examination; and/or
  • without first offereing the Patient a chaperone.


The Tribunal considered that there was inadequate evidence to discharge onus of proof that the charge was made out and the charge was dismissed.

Reason for Finding

The Tribunal found there was not sufficient evidence of a genital or an internal vaginal examination, or indeed any inappropriate intimate examination by the Doctor of the Patient.  It accepted as a more likely explanation that the Doctor had carried out an extensive examination of the abdomen and groin area when he was examining her lymph nodes and hernial orifices and that this was in close proximity to the clitoral area.  The Tribunal considered the Patient may have perceived the doctor's examination of her groin and hernial orifices as an examination of her gential and/or clitoral areas.

Particular 2 was predicated upon a finding of inappropriate examination.  The Tribunal was satisfied there was certainly an inadequacy in the documentation of the consultation.  However, in the absence of any inappropriate examination, the Director of Proceedings did not submit that the lack of documentation was professional misconduct or need be the subject of disciplinary sanction.

Therefore the charge was dismissed in all its Particulars.

Importance of Communication

The Tribunal wished to emphasise to the medical profession and the Doctor in this case specifically, that any examinations of the kind that he was undertaking and which are near the genital area require a clear explanation of exactly what is to happen and the reason behind it.

The Tribunal recommended that:

  • the Doctor should take advice and courses on communication to improve his communication skills.  The Tribunal advised him to take recommendations from the Medical Council of New Zealand.