File Number: Med18/413P
Practitioner: Vijay Gayapersadh Harypursat
Hearing Start Date:
Hearing End Date:
Hearing Town/City: Auckland
Video Conference, Elliot 3 Room, Crowne Plaza Hotel, 128 Albert Street, Auckland
Executive Officer: Ms Gay Fraser (04) 381 6816
Conditions on scope of practice - failure to comply (Established)
Name Suppression to Complainant and/or Patient and/or client
Patients granted permanent suppression of name and identifying features
Precis of Decision:
On 17 April 2018 by video conference, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal considered a charge laid by the Professional Conduct Committee against Dr Vijay Harypursat, medical practitioner of Whangarei (the Doctor).
The charge alleged that the Doctor had:
- On fourteen occasions between 15 July 2014 and 5 March 2015, breached a voluntary undertaking between him and the Medical Council of New Zealand (MCNZ) effective from 15 July 2014 that he have a chaperone present when seeing female patients.
- On ten occasions between 15 July 2014 and 9 September 2015, incorrectly and/or falsely recorded that a chaperone was present during consultations with female patients.
- Between 5 March 2015 and 9 September 2015, failed to observe a condition imposed by the MCNZ on his scope of practice effective from 5 March 2015 that he have a chaperone present when seeing female patients on two occasions.
The hearing proceeded on an agreed summary of facts basis.
The Tribunal was satisfied that Particulars 1 and 2 of the charge were established and amounted to negligence, malpractice and were likely to bring discredit to the profession. The Tribunal considered the Doctor's conduct was a significant departure from acceptable standards. The Tribunal found Particular 3 was established and warranted a disciplinary finding against him.
The Tribunal suspended the Doctor for a period of two years and censured him. Conditions were imposed on his practice following recommencement of practice. He is required to undergo training and assessment prior to commencing clinical practice and further conditions were imposed for a period of 2 years once he recommences clinical practice. The Tribunal ordered the Doctor pay a contribution of $9,703 towards the costs of and incidental to the hearing.
The Tribunal directed publication of its decision and a summary.