A HOSPITAL doctor pulled down a teenager’s trousers and knickers and carried out an intimate examination for his sexual gratification, a tribunal heard.
Dr Sarfaraz Malik allegedly performed an unnecessary internal examination without asking for consent from his 18-year-old patient.
The terrified young woman stared at the treatment room wall while Dr Malik prodded her and she then broke down in tears to a friend, the hearing was told.
The distressed woman, known as ‘Patient A’ for legal reasons, told a nurse she had no idea why the doctor had examined her at the Sunderland Royal Hospital, it is claimed.
An investigation was launched after a senior doctor found the patient had a gastric complaint, which required no gynaecological procedure.
Dr Malik is facing misconduct charges at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service in Manchester, where the General Medical Council allege his conduct was sexually motivated.
Giving evidence, Patient A told the panel: ‘He undid my jeans, whinged about the button because it was a difficult button, pulled them down and felt around inside.
“To be honest, all I done was stared at the wall.
“He never ever said what he was going to do, never ever. I was too scared.”
The teenager attended the accident and emergency department of Sunderland Royal Hospital in 2010 with a group of friends.
Patient A was in a treatment room with one of her friends when Dr Malik attended, the hearing was told.
“It is Patient A’s recollection that the doctor asked her very few questions regarding her condition and began to examine her, first sitting up listening to her chest, then lying down,” Ms Nicholls said, opening the case.
“As she was lying down, the doctor spoke with Patient A’s friend and Patient A’s friend left the room.
“After her friend left, it is Patient A’s recollection that the doctor simply removed Patient A’s jeans and underwear and then performed an internal vaginal examination.”
During an internal investigation in December, 2010 Dr Malik admitted he had undertaken a vaginal examination without a chaperone, but said he did it because he was under time pressures, Ms Nicholls told the panel.
He was reported to the GMC and the watchdog later identified a number of concerns over his actions.
It is also claimed that the FY2 doctor did not have enough experience to carry out the procedure and that he should have consulted a senior colleague.
Making no formal admissions to the charges, Kirstin Beswick, representing Dr Malik, said: ‘Overall, his behaviour and his care to Patient A were good.’
She told Patient A: “Dr Malik says he asked you quite a lot of questions about your history and he says that he did tell you he was about to do an internal examination.”
The hearing continues.