discipline summaries
in his pattern of misconduct over a six-year period. Dr.
B acknowledged that Dr. Maharajh still needs therapy
and medication. The Committee noted as well that Dr.
Maharajh continues to have stressors in his life, including
work in a hectic walk-in clinic, continued challenges with
his children and his extended family, and depression.
Although there was evidence that Dr. Maharajh has
been adhering to the terms of the undertaking he gave to
the College, and seeing female patients only with a chaperone, this gave the Committee little comfort. The Committee noted that the College’s original decision to permit
Dr. Maharajh to continue to see female patients provided
he adhered to the undertaking was taken and accepted at
a time when only one victim was known to the College.
Since then, Dr. Maharajh admitted that he engaged in
repeated acts of inappropriate behaviour with multiple
female patients over a long period of time. Further, Dr.
Maharajh’s inappropriate actions with the female patients
happened quickly, spontaneously and impulsively in
circumstances where he completely lost control. Allowing
him to continue to treat female patients while he is in the
early stages of treatment would not adequately protect
the public. If he were to repeat his actions with another
female patient, a chaperone may not be able to move
quickly enough to stop him.
The Committee concluded that the only way to
achieve protection of the public in this case is to order
that for an indefinite period of time, Dr. Maharajh’s
practice be restricted to male patients only, and that
prominent signage be placed in the waiting rooms of
any office that Dr. Maharajh works in notifying patients
that he can only treat male patients. The Committee also concluded that such an order was necessary in
order to uphold the integrity of the profession and the
public’s confidence in its ability to adequately selfregulate.
The Committee agreed that suspension of Dr. Maharajh’s certificate of registration is an appropriate penalty
in this case, and with such a lengthy history of repeated
misconduct with numerous patients, a significant length
of suspension is warranted. There must be serious consequences for such egregious behaviour against female
patients. The Committee is inclined to agree with the
College submission that had Dr. Maharajh’s misconduct
also involved male patients, a suspension would not
have been sufficient to protect the public, and revoca-
76
Dialogue Issue 4, 2014
tion would have been in order. However, given the
evidence that Dr. Maharajh’s impulsive behaviour only
affects female patients, the Committee was satisfied
that he can safely be allowed to continue to practise
medicine, after his suspension, on male patients only.
A lengthy suspension will impress upon Dr. Maharajh,
and the membership at large, that patients must be able
to trust that their physicians will always put their health
and needs first and, of course, do no harm. Dr. Maharajh completely failed to consider the impact his actions
would have on his patients and continued to abuse vulnerable female patients over a period of six years. Only
when the most recent patient made a complaint did he
stop this behaviour and seek treatment.
The Committee acknowledged the mitigating factors:
Dr. Maharajh has no previous Discipline Committee
findings; he was cooperative with the College once the
allegations were made; he voluntarily brought forward
the information regarding his other victims; and he
has undertaken therapy since Patient A came forward.
Having regard to all the circumstances, the Committee concluded that an eight-month suspension of Dr.
Maharajh’s certificate of registration was appropriate.
A reprimand is a mandatory penalty under the Code
when a member has been found to have engaged in
sexual abuse of a patient. The Committee stated that a
reprimand shows its abhorrence و