Editorial: Medical Council failed in its primary role

OPINION: In the Medical Council's own words, its primary purpose is "to ensure that medical practitioners are fit to practise".

It is a job the council failed to perform in the case of Ratilal Magan Ranchhod, the Auckland GP fined $7500 for professional misconduct and ordered to pay $20,000 costs after being found guilty of working without a current practising certificate in December 2008 and January 2009 and forging one.

The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal's decision on the case reveals that the council took 2 1/2 years to take decisive action against Dr Ranchhod despite receiving four increasingly pointed letters about his performance from Health and Disability Commissioner Ron Paterson.

Mr Paterson first alerted the council to his concerns in May 2006, saying Dr Ranchhod had been the subject of 11 complaints. The council duly initiated a review which found Dr Ranchhod was "not performing at an acceptable level for a doctor working within a general scope of medical practice".

In June 2007, the commissioner wrote to the council again saying he had received a "serious" 13th complaint which, together with the earlier complaints, suggested Dr Ranchhod might "pose a risk of harm to the public". The council instructed Dr Ranchhod to undertake a training programme and imposed conditions on his practice.

In December 2007, the commissioner contacted the council a third time after receiving two further complaints against Dr Ranchhod. He now held "grave concerns that the public is at risk of harm" and suggested the council suspend Dr Ranchhod's practising certificate.

The council agreed there were reasonable grounds for believing Dr Ranchhod posed "a risk of serious harm to the public" but instead of suspending him arranged for his clinical notes and decision-making to be monitored on a weekly basis.

It was not until December 2008, five months after the commissioner passed on a 16th complaint, that the council decided not to renew his practising certificate.

The whole process took more than 2 1/2 years. That is at least 12 months too long.

The council, comprised of eight medical practitioners and four laypeople, has a duty to ensure doctors are not hounded out of the profession by innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations. But in Dr Ranchhod's case a clear pattern of failure was apparent by December 2007 at the very latest.

At that point the onus of the council's activities should have shifted from trying to help Dr Ranchhod to protecting the public.

Health Minister Tony Ryall has demanded an urgent report on the case. He has taken the correct course of action.

Dr Ranchhod should have been suspended at least a year before he was – until such time as he was able to demonstrate he could meet the standards expected of his profession.

- © Fairfax NZ News