Read time: 1 minute
Dr. Anurag Goswami sanctioned for sexual relationship with patient
After admitting to unprofessional conduct, Dr. Anurag Goswami was sanctioned by a CPSA Hearing Tribunal.
Dr. Goswami was charged with having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a patient between December 2016 and April 2017, failing to report a sexual boundary violation to CPSA, and reporting that he had not engaged in a sexual or inappropriate personal relationship with a patient on his annual renewal form, when he knew that such an answer was false.
Dr. Goswami admitted to the allegations and acknowledged his conduct was unprofessional. The Hearing Tribunal accepted a joint submission on sanction and ordered the following:
- Goswami’s practice permit is suspended for 11 months, with five months held in abeyance pending successful completion of a professional boundaries course.
- Goswami shall complete an appropriate course on professional boundaries at his own cost.
- Goswami shall undergo a multi-disciplinary assessment at his own expense, and undertake and complete any treatment it recommends. If the assessment determines there is a need for treatment or practice conditions, they will be imposed by CPSA’s Complaints Director.
- Goswami’s practice permit shall be subject to chaperone conditions for a minimum of three years starting Nov. 29, 2018. This condition was deemed served as of the date of the Hearing Tribunal’s written decision.
- Goswami is responsible for the costs of the investigation and the hearing.
As Dr. Goswami’s conduct occurred before the implementation of Bill 21: An Act to Protect Patients, mandatory sanctions under that legislation do not apply. The Tribunal’s full written decision can be found on CPSA’s website.
Professional boundaries within the physician-patient relationship are an essential part of medical practice. Engaging in a personal or sexual relationship with a patient is a clear violation and a breach of CPSA’s standards.
During the complaints and hearing process, a physician’s conduct is judged against the standards in place at the time of the incident.