Ravi Devgan Reprimanded (1993)
In 1993, Dr. Ravi Devgan settled a charge of professional misconduct for having a conflict of interest in his dealings with a patient. He received a recorded reprimand and was fined $5,000.
In 2003, the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario concluded that Dr. Ravi Devgan had committed acts of professional misconduct, in that he charged a fee that was excessive in relation to the service performed; made a misrepresentation respecting a remedy, treatment or device; placed himself in a conflict of interest; and he engaged in disgraceful, dishonorable or unprofessional conduct. In June 2003, the Committee revoked Devgan’s certificate of registration. The hearing was prompted by complaints from relatives of three cancer patients who died shortly after Devgan started them on treatment with Carnivora, a product made from an extract of the Venus Flytrap plant. Press reports indicate that two of the three patients paid $30,000 in advance for 24 treatments and the other paid $280 at each treatment session and Devgan refused to refund the any portion of the money.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
Discipline Committee Decision
Dr. Ravi Devgan
Toronto
Dr. Devgan pleaded guilty to a charge of professional misconduct in that he had a conflict of interest in his dealings with a patient.
The prosecution had insufficient evidence to proceed on a charge of failing to maintain the standard and, in light of the guilty plea, did not object to a stay of a charge of unprofessional conduct.
Dr. Devgan, a family physician practising general and holistic medicine, provided medical care to a female restaurant owner. Having frequented her restaurant in the 1970’s as a university student, he took her on as a patient from 1984 to 1987.
In September 1986, this patient was persuaded to loan the doctor $25,000.00 to help finance a real estate venture. A second loan of $25,000.00 was made a month later and a subsequent loan of $3,000.00 was also made. It turned out that neither Dr. Devgan nor his partner in this venture, invested any of their own money. Repayment was commenced three months later and the patient was eventually repaid the principal sums through some inventive financing by the doctor. Though the investment realized a profit of $25,000.00, the patient received none of this amount.
Requiring further funds to close the deal, the doctor asked the patient to mortgage her restaurant property for the amount of $164,000.00. This mortgage was executed on November 25, 1986. The patient received legal advice in this matter from a lawyer who acted for a party loaning money to Dr. Devgan. She was advised that the funds were required for a six-week period. Though he personally guaranteed the mortgage, Dr. Devgan gave his patient no consideration for the benefit received. The mortgage was discharged in December 1986.
The next month, the doctor requested that another mortgage in the amount of $83,000.00 be put on her restaurant property for a period of three months. This time another lawyer was present to give the patient independent legal advice on the matter. There was a conflict over the quality of advice given. The funds were used by the doctor to finance various real estate ventures. This mortgage was discharged in May 1987. Once again, the patient received no benefit from this transaction. That month, the doctor was influential in the patient’s decision to place a $425,000.00 mortgage on her property with a lender arranged by the doctor. He was a co-guarantor on this mortgage. Various documents connected with this mortgage were signed by Dr. Devgan as an authorized signing officer of the patient’s operation. The patient received no independent legal advice in this matter. The mortgage funds were used by the doctor in his real estate ventures. A portion of the funds were used to pay off the other mortgages on the property.
The doctor defaulted on the mortgage payments, the mortgagee commenced Power of Sale proceedings and the patient entered into a civil action against the doctor. A settlement called for the doctor to make payments to the patient over a 105-month period.
As a result of his investments, Dr. Devgan lost his mortgaged home and office and declared personal bankruptcy. He was granted a conditional discharge in 1993. Among the terms of this grant, the doctor agreed to continue the payments to his patient.
The Committee accepted Dr. Devgan’s plea and found him guilty of the charge of professional misconduct for having a conflict of interest with his patient.
Penalty
The prosecution pointed out the conflict between the patient’s interest and the physician’s self-interest and called for a recorded reprimand and a fine of $5,000.00. The principle of general deterrence to the profession was a key factor to be considered. A letter to the College from the patient’s legal advisor was entered into evidence in which she expressed her wish that the doctor be neither suspended from practice nor fined.
The defence pointed out that civil litigation had resolved the financial matters between the patient and the doctor. It was submitted that the fact of the doctor acknowledging his error and of this not being a case of moral turpitude made this a case where an unrecorded reprimand and no fine would be appropriate. The Committee was advised that the patient had attempted to withdraw the complaint but the prosecution had proceeded despite this.
In making its determination, the Committee put a great deal of weight on the undue influence this doctor had put on his patient from the position of trust he had been placed in. He breached the fiduciary duty he owed her when he used his position to further his own financial interests. The Committee considered this to be an act of moral turpitude of equal gravity to others more commonly before it.
While specific deterrence would be attained by the fact of these proceedings and a reprimand, the Committee was of the opinion that general deterrence was important. A physician engaging in this type of misconduct must know how seriously the profession views this transgression of its responsibility to the public.
The Committee ordered that Dr. Devgan be reprimanded, with the fact of the reprimand to be recorded on the Register.
In addition, the Committee directed that Dr. Devgan pay a fine to the Treasurer of Ontario for payment into the Consolidated Revenue Fund in the amount of $5,000.00; payable in the amount of $500.00 per month for ten months. Failure to pay said fine within ten months from the day on which this order becomes final shall result in the Registrar suspending the doctor’s licence to practise medicine until payment is made. In light of the doctor’s financial circumstances, the Committee granted him a period of six months from the day on which this order becomes final to make payment.
This page was posted on October 16, 2007.
