Harley Street doctor, 61, who treated late Bee Gee Robin Gibb for cancer is cleared of sexual misconduct after being accused of molesting a female patient
- Police questioned Dr Andrew Thillainayagam, 61, over 2007 assault allegations
- Patient claimed he asked her to undress and he then touched her intimately
- The London Clinic doctor has been cleared of sexually misconduct by a tribunal
- Dr Thillainayagam treated Robin Gibb in 2012 just weeks before he passed away
A Harley Street doctor who treated late Bee Gee Robin Gibb for cancer has been cleared of sexual misconduct after a five year inquiry into claims he molested another patient during an intimate examination.
Dr Andrew Thillainayagam, 61, was questioned by police after the unnamed woman claimed he sexually assaulted her after instructing her to remove all her clothes except her bra during a consultation in 2007.
Initially the woman did not make a complaint but eventually she reported him in 2017 to officials at the London Clinic where Thillainayagm has a private practise – and later police.
It is thought detectives investigated the doctor and took no action against him – but he was reported to the General Medical Council in 2018.
Dr Thillainayagam treated Gibb in 2012 in the weeks before the singer, who suffered advanced colorectal cancer, passed away from kidney failure.
Dr Andrew Thillainayagam, 61, (pictured) was questioned by police after the unnamed woman claimed he sexually assaulted her after instructing her to remove all her clothes except her bra during a consultation in 2007. He has been cleared of sexually motivated misconduct by a medical tribunal
It emerged today that he faced being struck off after being accused of sexually motivated misconduct.
He was cleared following a tribunal last month during which he denied any impropriety.
The consultant gastroenterologist and hepatologist who qualified in Manchester in 1984 had become a Consultant Physician at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London in 1996 and joined The London Clinic in Harley Street two years later.
The consultation on January 27 2007 occurred when the patient known as Ms A requested treatment for an undisclosed condition.
She claimed the doctor instructed her to remove all of her clothing except her bra then remained next to her whilst she removed her clothing.
It was alleged he then placed his finger under the band of Ms A’s bra and said: ‘Does this come off?’
It was then alleged he conducted an examination of her hips whilst she was naked from the waist down.
He was said to have then placed his finger near Ms A’s intimate region when such an examination was not clinically indicated and failed to record that he offered her a chaperone.
In his witness statement, Dr Thillainayagam said he could not recall treating Ms A due to the period of time passed but said he would have placed his hand inside her underwear to determine whether there was an inguinal hernia.
Dr Thillainayagam treated late Bee Gee Robin Gibb (pictured) in 2012 in the weeks before the singer, who suffered advanced colorectal cancer, passed away from kidney failure
Relying purely on his medical notes he said: ‘In order to listen to the apex beat of a woman’s heart this sometimes necessitates the lifting of a bra/breast.
‘More often this is done by sliding the stethoscope under the bra line and pressing firmly down under the left breast. Clearly, a finger would have been used before listening to identify the apex beat.
‘It is not necessary to remove a women’s bra to examine a heart if the patient is slim. I would not have asked Patient A to remove her bra.
‘My usual practice is to offer a chaperone when an examination is required… I have no reason to believe I did not do this.’
In clearing Dr Thillainayagam, MPTS chairman Mrs Catherine Moxon said: ‘The Tribunal was of the opinion that Ms A was a compelling witness who was giving her honest recollection of events and was not acting out of any malice or deliberate deceit.
‘Her testimony as a whole was reinforced by key points of detail, which the Tribunal considered added to the weight of her account.
‘She was demonstrably in error in some aspects of her account of events but despite these inconsistencies in the details of her account, the Tribunal nonetheless considered that Ms A was stating what she genuinely believed to be the truth throughout her evidence.
‘The Tribunal also considered that Dr Thilainayagam was consistent in his evidence, particularly in relation to his patterns and procedures when conducting common examinations. He is an experienced practitioner and by this stage in his career, he had developed standard routines and such examinations had become ‘automatic’.
‘He could not actually remember the consultation with Ms A, and was working from his records of his interactions with her.
‘Whilst the Tribunal accepted Ms A’s reasons for delaying her complaint, and made no criticism of that, the Tribunal also accepted that this logically created a situation whereby Dr Thillainayagam was asked to account for his actions for the first time 10 years or longer after the consultation. This created a material disadvantage for Dr Thillainayagam.
‘Ms A’s evidence was that she was told to undress down to her underwear and then also told to take her knickers off. Dr Thillainayagam said that he only invites patients to remove what is necessary, and that he does not ask patients to remove their underwear.
‘In the absence of any independent evidence, the Tribunal determined that the GMC had not proved its case.’
Source: Read Full Article