Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal
Director of Proceedings v Dr Digvijay Goel, 1518/Med24/617D (30 October 2025)
The Director of Proceedings filed a charge of professional misconduct against Dr Digvijay Goel, in the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). The charge comprised five particulars arising from Dr Goel’s interactions with three patients between 2014 and 2019. It was alleged that his communication with and about the patients was unprofessional, and/ or inappropriate, and/ or disrespectful, and in one case potentially dangerous.
Dr Goel is a psychiatrist with almost 60 years’ experience. Since 2005, Dr Goel has been a consultant psychiatrist at Southland Hospital.
The Director obtained expert evidence from Dr Rosemary Edwards, a consultant psychiatrist. Dr Edwards outlined the relevant standards expected of psychiatrists in relation to interactions with patients and appropriate clinical records and correspondence. Dr Edwards outlined how Dr Goel’s communications fell short of these standards and how such conduct impacts the therapeutic relationship. All the patients were vulnerable with serious mental health conditions and some of the conduct occurred in acute and risk settings.
Once the Director had filed its evidence, Dr Goel admitted negligence and discredit to the profession in relation to the charge. Dr Goel also admitted key facts, in that he authored the documents, went to the meetings and the records of meetings were accurate. Shortly before the hearing, Dr Goel accepted the Director’s briefs of evidence (so they could be taken as read). At the hearing, Dr Goel accepted his actions amounted to professional misconduct, but his counsel submitted that the disciplinary threshold should only be reached cumulatively across all five particulars. Dr Goel’s counsel also submitted that his client’s conduct did not amount to malpractice, nor was it ‘potentially dangerous’ in relation to particular 5.
Aside from not finding Dr Goel’s actions ‘potentially dangerous’ in relation to particular 5, the Tribunal found the rest of the charge proved on the balance of probabilities. The Tribunal found Dr Goel’s conduct fell well short of expected professional standards and therefore he was guilty of negligence. The Tribunal also found his actions brought discredit to the profession, noting that many people would be appalled at the way he expressed himself and that such a manner clearly undermines confidence in the medical profession. The Tribunal held particular 1 warranted disciplinary sanction on its own, and the remaining four particulars warranted disciplinary sanction cumulatively. The Tribunal also recorded its strong disapproval of the following aggravating aspects of the case:
a) Dr Goel had been made aware of the impact of his conduct toward [Ms S] and had apologised and yet continued with his disrespectful communication.
b) [Mr E] was the subject of a Compulsory Treatment Order and was vulnerable in the light of that and his relationship to Dr Goel who was his treating psychiatrist who he was required to engage with (until he had a change in psychiatrist).
c) Instances of the particularised conduct occurred in acute and risk settings and where the patients were in clear distress with suicidal ideation.
d) Dr Goel’s conduct had a negative impact on his patients, and this was entirely predictable. In fact, the Tribunal considered some of his comments were entirely provocative. As noted by the Director, [Ms S] and [Mr N] left the consultations in distress, but Dr Goel appears to have taken no immediate steps to ensure their wellbeing.
e) The communication was over a period of time. It was not just an instance of a practitioner losing his cool in difficult circumstances.
f) Dr Goel thought it was appropriate to communicate in this way in correspondence with other health professionals and in court documents.
g) Dr Goel is a senior practitioner and was role modelling very poor standards for those he was supervising.
However, the Tribunal recognised Dr Goel’s long and esteemed career and that he had taken steps to address the conduct. Dr Goel was censured. The Tribunal did not impose any conditions on his practice, noting those aspects had already been addressed through the Medical Council Performance Assessment and Educational Programme undertaken. A fine of $3,000 was imposed as the Tribunal considered Dr Goel’s actions warranted some punishment. The Tribunal ordered 40% of costs against Dr Goel and declined his application for permanent name suppression.
A link to the Tribunal’s decision can be found at: