Bhagat legal suit takes new twist

Staff Writer | Friday September 10, 2010 00:00

 

The case in which medical practitioner Kiran Bhagat has slapped the Botswana Health Professions Council and its committee members with a defamation suit has taken a new twist.

In their pleas before court the council raises very grave questions that openly suggest criminal behaviour on the part of Bhagat. The council states that Bhagat has never been registered with the council even though he has been practicising medicine in the country. A shade worse, the council alleges that Bhagat has been impersonating someone else in his quest to be registered and has been using a certificate that does not belong to him to practice.

While Bhagat says he was registered with the council in April 2000, the council maintain that they have scoured the records of BHPC and its forerunner, the Botswana Medical Council, and found no registration in the names of Kiran Bhagat.

“The person who registered as a physician in 1996 and not 2000 was one Kaushik-Kumar B Bhagat in the register of Medical Professions on June 4, 1996. The defendants aver that the  Plaintiff therefore, has never been registered with either the Botswana Medical Council, a predecessor of BHPC in 1996 or in 2000 or at all,” reads part of their plea.

In what could possibly be a damning case of impersonation the council alleges that Bhagat had at all times renewed a certain certificate number 1B-53 in the names of Kaushik-Kumar B Bhagat, who registered with the Medical Council in 1996.  It would appear that Bhagat continued using the certificate registered to Kaushik from 2001 until February 2006 when he sought to transfer this into his own names. The council further alleges that it was at that time when the designation was changed in error to ‘specialist physician’ rather than just as physician.

While the council admits that Kiran Bhagat had been paying annual subscriptions they say he was not granted permission to set up a cardiology clinic. In his suit, Bhagat claims that there was a commission (Moffat) that was set up and its  findings apparently cleared Bhagat to practise as a cardiologist. However, the council refutes this claim and asserts that they have never accepted the commission’s findings.

The council categorically deny the claim by Bhagat that he is registered and or accredited as a cardiologist in the United Kingdom (UK) either by the General Medical Council or the Specialist Training Authority.

“Defendants further aver that cardiology is a recognised speciality as is General Internal Medicine and Clinical Pharmacology and as such, unless where there was double or triple accreditation that is evidently shown in the existing documents, the plaintiff has to apply to be registered in each of those specialities separately. 

In the United Kingdom where Bhagat trained, he would have been required to be registered as such in order to call himself a cardiologist,” the plea adds that Bhagat has not been accredited nor did he apply to be accredited in cardiology.

In the circumstances the council contend that Bhagat is practicing medicine in contravention of the law. In simple terms, they state that in order for Bhagat to be registered he must be qualified to practice but since he has not been able to qualify as a cardiologist according to the dictates of competent authority in the UK he would not be registered in Botswana as a cardiologist.

The council further quashes the suit slapped on them, saying they have immunity against legal proceedings, civil or criminal, in respect of the performance of any act during the exercise of their duties in accordance with the provisions of Botswana Health Professions Act.

Bhagat in his suit claims to have suffered damages and wants the council and the 13 other members to pay damages. In response, the defendants say Bhagat has no right to claim damages, as he has no reputation to protect. They mention that Bhagat has admitted to plagiarism in a medical journal: Central African Journal of Medicine resulting in the journal retracting his articles. They further mention the fact that Bhagat has impersonated Kaushik-Kumar B Bhagat, which they say is reprehensible conduct.

The case came up for status hearing on Monday before Justice Michael Leburu. Court set September 21 as the date for replication. On October 22 the parties will meet at Legal Consultants for a pre-trial conference while the next Status Hearing will be on November 5.

Reuben Kamushinda, for Bhagat, informed court that they have now engaged the services of advocate David Kuny. Attorney Kgalalelo Monthe is acting for the council and the other 13 defendants.