Medical council won’t review removal of doctor from register until action heard
Stabroek News
August 10, 2002
The Guyana Medical Council cannot review the removal of the name of New Amsterdam physician, Dr Nelson Sinclair, from the Register of Medical Practitioners until the Court has determined an action filed by him in the high court challenging that decision, Chairman of the Council, Dr M Y Bacchus told Stabroek News.
On July 9, Justice Winston Moore disallowed an application by Dr Sinclair to discontinue his action. Khemraj Ramjattan, counsel for Dr Sinclair, made the application after the new Medical Council indicated its intention to re-hear the complaint against Dr Sinclair, which led to the removal of his name from the Register.
Contacted by the Stabroek News, Justice Moore said that if the former Council were properly constituted when it reached its decision it would be improper for the decision of that Council to be disregarded.
However, Justice Moore said that Dr Sinclair’s counsel indicated his intention to appeal his decision by a prerogative writ.
The Guyana Medical Council, then chaired by Dr Walter Ramsahoye, after a hearing in December removed Dr Sinclair’s name from the Register. It did so after it found him responsible for the death of Parbattie.
Parbattie died following an attempted abortion performed by Dr Sinclair, when at the time he was not licensed to perform such procedures. Dr Sinclair was not present at the hearing but Parbattie’s husband Bridglall, who filed the complaint, was.
Dr Bacchus has confirmed that only doctors approved by the Council can perform abortions where the foetus is more than eight weeks old.
Dr Ramsahoye said that Bridglall testified and the Council found his testimony credible and consistent with the cause of death given on his wife’s death certificate.
Dr Sinclair had earlier told Stabroek News that his counsel had advised him that he had applied for the hearing of the complaint against him by Bridglall before the Guyana Medical Council to be re-scheduled as he would have been out of the country when it was due to be heard and that he was confident that the adjournment would have been granted. As a consequence, he said, he did not attend the hearing. He said too that he had filed a response to the complaint with the Council but had delivered it to the Ministry of Health.