Bhagat sues for 9 million Pula

GREG KELEBONYE
Staff Writer | Wednesday April 21, 2010 00:00

 

The suit arises from differences between the BHPC and Professor Bhagat, over his qualifications. The BHPC is saying that Bhagat is only a general physician and not a cardiologist, while Bhagat maintains that he is a specialist Physician whose area of speciality is cardiology.

In a summons issued yesterday 13 doctors and the BHPC are sighted in the multi-million Pula lawsuit. The BHPC is cited as the first defendant, then reads the following respondents, Dr Joseph Makhema, Dr Brighid Malone, Dr Ikopeng German, Prof Thomas Massaro, Dr K. Kgosibodioba, Dr Thato Moumakwa, Felicity Gochani-Sebeso - a dietician and Assistant Registrar of BHPC, Tshegofatso Mabeo, a physiotherapist, M. Ntsabane, a social worker, E Palai, a dentist, Boago Modiitsane, an optometrist, pharmacist Richard Leepo and Duncan Thela, also a pharmacist.

In the background to the case Bhagat's lawyer Peter Collins says that the Botswana Medical Council [a regulatory authority established under the medical, dental and pharmacy Act MDPA), Cap 61:02,] registered and certified Bhagat as a Specialist Physician. On 18th February 2002, the director of Health Services granted Bhagat permission to set up a Cardiology Private Practice in Gaborone. Collins argues that Bhagat's certificate issued by the MDPA remained valid even after the MDPA was replaced by the Health Professions Council in terms of section 19 (3) which says that the repeal of the body does not invalidate any registration validity effected under or in accordance with the provisions of the act, or any certificate issued under the Act or any decision of the Council or other body properly constituted under the Act.

Collins argues that following permission to set up a cardiology practice Dr Bhagat set up the 'Cardiac Clinic in Gaborone.'He paid his annual subscription fees to first defendant and each year for the past eight years, he was issued a certificate granting him permission to practice....[the] second defendant who was and still is Chairman of First Defendant [BHPC] throughout this period, was at all material times aware that plaintiff was a specialist physician (he signed his certificate) in cardiology and cardio-vascular disease.

Collins also takes issue with the fact that the BHPC assigned a medical team, comprising respected and very senior specialist physicians Howard Moffat, C. Onnen and Pharmacist R. Leepo to do an audit of the Cardiac Clinic.  One of the tasks for the trio was to look at 'the qualifications of Dr Bhagat and in particular the validity of his title of professor and the legitimacy of his status as a cardiologist'

'At the time this was thought necessary on account of an increase in medical aid claims received by the Medical Aid Funds from the Cardiac Clinic, which it was said threatened their viability'. Running some 40 pages, the 'Moffat Report' returned the verdict:

'The audit committee has therefore concluded that Dr Bhagat is trained in cardiology and may properly call himself a cardiologist.'  The BHPC accepted and adopted the findings only to pounce on Bhagat on April 15, 2009 where in a letter signed by Makhema the BHPC advised Bhagat that he needed to 'regularise' as he was operating as a cardiologist while he was registered with the Council as a specialist physician.  Bhagat then wrote to the BHPC applying to change his professional medical designation from  'Specialist Physician' to 'Cardiologist' as per BHPC's request, says Collins.

 Collins argues that Bhagat received the appropriate training as a Cardiologist under the auspices of the General Medical Council of the United Kingdom. In fact Collins argues that ' if a Cardiologist is construed as a profession rather than an area of specialisation for a Specialist Physician, then Plaintiff who poses superior cardilogical qualifications and training antecedents to others registered as by First Defendant as 'Cardiologists', should have been registered as such in addition [emphasis] to being registered as Specialist Physician rather than 'changing' from one to the other.

Collins contends that by publishing statements in the media to the effect that Bhagat is not a Cardiologist, the defendant portrayed him as a fraudulent medical physician when he is only a family doctor, and that it was necessary to immediately inform the public of his sins to rescue it from his deception.

He contends that the defendants acted in malice or were irrational and reckless in their conduct with the express purpose of destroying Professor Bhagat's reputation and livelihood. The defendants, he argues cannot be indemnified by the Act as their conduct was outside any proper and lawful actions and duties conferred upon them by the Act.

As such the defendants are accordingly liable individually for damages.  He breaks down the damages as P7,300,000 for estimated permanent loss of income earning capacity as a result of Plaintiff's patients deserting him following publication of the defamatory notice, and P2,000,000 for personal hurt and humiliation.