Medical practitioner disqualified for ten years for professional misconduct

17 Jul 2017

The Western Australia State Administrative Tribunal (the tribunal) has disqualified Dr Anish Singh from applying for re-registration for ten years and fined him $5,000 for professional misconduct.

The Board referred three separate notifications against Dr Singh to the tribunal, which were consolidated in 2014.

On 23 February 2017, the tribunal determined that Dr Singh’s conduct from early 2008 could be defined as careless, incompetent and improper in accordance with the Medical Practitioners Act 2008 (WA), and from October 2010, his behavior constituted professional misconduct in accordance Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.

The tribunal found that Dr Singh:

• from early 2008 engaged in a practice on multiple occasions and over a long period of time of:
  • inappropriately and without proper therapeutic indication prescribing anabolic androgenic steroids, stimulants, Clenbuterol, Clomid and human growth hormone
  • inappropriately ordering infusions of iron and fresh frozen plasma, and
  • ordering unnecessary DEXA scans
• prescribed Clomid contrary to regulation 38C of the Poisons Regulations 1965 (WA)
• prescribed Sibutramine after it was withdrawn worldwide in October 2010 due to the risks of adverse cardiac events in people with pre-existing or unstable cardiac disease
• failed to keep proper clinical records, in breach of the Code of Ethics of the Australian Medical Association and the Board’s Code of Conduct, and
• wrote an abusive letter to the notifying practitioner.

The tribunal agreed with the evidence presented by the Board’s experts that Dr Singh’s prescribing exposed patients to very serious adverse side effects.

Dr Singh had been unregistered since 2015. On 22 June 2017, the tribunal disqualified him from applying for re-registration for ten years, fined him $5,000 and ordered that he pay the Board’s costs for the proceedings.

In reaching its decision, the tribunal concluded that Dr Singh’s misconduct was serious, particularly so because there was no therapeutic basis for his prescribing, which occurred on repeated occasions over a long period of time. The number of instances of inappropriate prescribing and failure to take notes over a prolonged period led the tribunal to conclude that there was a very substantial risk of Dr Singh engaging in such conduct again.

The tribunal found that Dr Singh’s conduct was plainly dishonest and he failed to show any remorse or insight. As such, the tribunal did not have confidence that he would not engage in such misconduct again given the opportunity.

The tribunal concluded that had Dr Singh still been registered there was no question that it would have cancelled his registration.

The decision has been published on the State Administrative Tribunal website.