WA doctor cleared of misconduct after allegations of inappropriate touching

A specialist doctor has been cleared of any misconduct after two women alleged he inappropriately touched them.

A specialist obstetrician and gynaecologist who was suspended from working in Western Australia after two women accused him of inappropriately touching them has been cleared of any misconduct.

Angamuthu Arunkalaivanan had been accused of inappropriately touching one woman’s exposed breasts and rubbing his erection against her leg in November 2018.

Less than one year later, a second woman claimed when a chaperone nurse briefly stepped away Dr Arunkalaivanan inserted his fingers into her vagina without consent.

After complaints were made to police and the Australian Medical Board, Dr Arunkalaivanan’s medical registration was suspended.

His case went to the State Administrative Tribunal, which recently handed down its decision in his favour.

The SAT ruled that the father of two had “no case to answer” and no further action should be taken.

“The board has not established any of the allegations it brought against Dr Arunkalaivanan on the balance of probabilities,” the tribunal said.

The doctor has been cleared of any misconduct.

The board had alleged the touching in each case was not done for a legitimate medical purpose but rather was motivated by Dr Arunkalaivanan’s desire for sexual gratification.

Dr Arunkalaivanan maintained the examinations were appropriate, performed in a manner consistent with medical techniques and carried out after consent had been given and took place in the presence of a chaperone.

“There was nothing about Dr Arunkalaivanan’s evidence that caused us to have any concerns about his honesty,” the SAT said.

“We are not satisfied that the board has proved any of the allegations against Dr Arunkalaivanan to the requisite standard.”

The SAT also noted that in his evidence, the doctor said his experience in the UK – where he was found to have performed a breast examination in a “clumsy and inappropriate” way that was not sexually motivated, albeit that the patient felt it was – had been a “salutary lesson”.

The tribunal further ruled that it was not persuaded that the first patient’s account was honest, accurate or reliable.

The tribunal was also “unable to be satisfied to the requisite standard” that the conduct complained of by the second patient actually occurred.