INTRODUCTION

Dr. Nitin Chopra is a psychiatrist who practises at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) located in Toronto, Ontario. He has been an active member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) since 2018.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Part I

(1) Dr. Nitin Chopra graduated from International American University.

(2) International American University is a second chance medical school located in Saint Lucia, in the Caribbean.

(3) International American University lured a number of foreign students through fake advertisements. These students travelled there in pursuit of higher education, only to be scammed and abused in multiple ways.¹

(4) The government of Saint Lucia declared International American University a scam, and took action to address the issue.

(5) As a result, International American University lost its accreditations in Canada; The situation is similar in the US.

(6) According the Medical Council of Canada (MCC), starting from January 1, 2018, graduates from International American University are not eligible to apply for licensure, or services of the council.²

Part II

(1) A patient was referred by their family physician to CAMH for therapy.

(2) The initial assessment was conducted by a student, because Dr. Chopra was not available; This was done without informing the patient.

(3) The initial assessment was conducted online because of COVID-19 restrictions.

(4) During the assessment, the patient disclosed to the student that he uses cannabis daily, because it helps him with anxiety and sleep issues.

(5) After the assessment, the student consulted with Dr. Chopra, then called the patient on the phone, and told him that they will report him to the Ministry of Transportation, and that his driver's licence will be suspended. He then added that it will not be suspended if he complies with the treatment, and accepts to get screened for cannabis every two weeks.

(6) Finally, he said that they will prescribe him a medication called Gabapentin.

(7) The student did not inform the patient concerning the side-effects, and risks associated with the medication.

(8) The patient complied because he was terrified and panicked.

(9) Later the patient sent an email to Dr. Chopra and the student; He informed them that he felt that he had no other choice than to take the medication; He also informed them that he does not want to continue treatment at CAMH.

(10) Dr. Chopra did not answer the email.

(11) The student replied with a short message informing the patient that on his next appointment, they will clarify to him their legal obligations to report patients to the Ministry of Transportation.

(12) The patient replied that he doesn't drive, and that he feels forced to take the medication they prescribed him, and repeated that he does not want to continue treatment at CAMH.

(13) The patient assumed that the next appointment was canceled.

(14) A few weeks later, the patient received a call from Dr. Chopra's office asking him to confirm the appointment which was scheduled later that same day.

(15) The patient confirmed the appointment because he was not sure if his driver's licence was suspended or not.

(16) A few minutes later, Dr. Chopra called back the patient.

(17) The patient was taken by surprise because the appointment was scheduled a few hours later; As a result, the patient's girlfriend was present during the phone call; This was not the patient's wish as he needed more privacy.

(18) The patient asked Dr. Chopra for the reasons why he has to take Gabapentin, and told him that he searched it on the internet, and found that Gabapentin is addictive, unnecessary and more harmful than cannabis; This was the first time the patient spoke directly with Dr. Chopra.

(19) Dr. Chopra told the patient that he has to take the medication because he has a heavy cannabis addiction.

(20) The patient pushed-back strongly, and questioned the need for a medication that seemed to him more harmful and more addictive than cannabis.

(21) The patient told Dr. Chopra that he was never informed concerning the side-effects and risks associated with Gabapentin, and that considering how the appointment went he will file a complaint against him.

(22) During the phone conversation, Dr. Chopra kept changing his mind regarding the reporting to the Ministry of Transportation. At first, he told the patient that they have a legal obligation to report him, then he assured him that he will discuss again with the student, and finally he announced to the patient that they will report him.

(23) After the call, the patient's girlfriend called Dr. Chopra's office crying, and left a voicemail with her phone number.

(24) Two days later, Dr. Chopra called back the patient's girlfriend, and informed her that the patient's driver's licence is suspended.

(25) The patient was informed by his girlfriend that his driver's licence was suspended.

(26) The patient did not give consent to Dr. Chopra to talk with his girlfriend about his medical condition.

(27) Since then, the patient went through so much pain and suffering that he became suicidal. He lost trust in all physicians and the healthcare system. He feels that he was unjustly treated like a criminal and thrown away for refusing to take a medication that he considers as harmful.

DECISION AND REASONS

Having regard to the facts specified in paragraphs 1 to 27, the conduct described constitutes professional misconduct:

under paragraph 1(1)2 of Ontario Regulation 856/93 made under the Medicine Act, 1991 (“O. Reg. 856/93”), in that Dr. Chopra has failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession;
under paragraph 1(1)9 of Ontario Regulation 856/93 made under the Medicine Act, 1991 (“O. Reg. 856/93”), in that Dr. Chopra performed a professional service for which consent is required by law without consent;
under paragraph 1(1)33 of Ontario Regulation 856/93 made under the Medicine Act, 1991 (“O. Reg. 856/93”), in that Dr. Chopra committed an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional;
under paragraph 1(1)13 of Ontario Regulation 856/93 made under the Medicine Act, 1991 (“O. Reg. 856/93”), in that Dr. Chopra made a misrepresentation respecting a remedy, treatment or device;
under paragraph 1(1)10 of Ontario Regulation 856/93 made under the Medicine Act, 1991 (“O. Reg. 856/93”), in that Dr. Chopra gave information concerning the condition of a patient or any services rendered to a patient to a person other than the patient or his or her authorized representative except with the consent of the patient or his or her authorized representative or as required by law;
under paragraph 1(1)6 of Ontario Regulation 856/93 made under the Medicine Act, 1991 (“O. Reg. 856/93”), in that Dr. Chopra prescribed, dispensed or sold drugs for an improper purpose;
under paragraph 1(1)12 of Ontario Regulation 856/93 made under the Medicine Act, 1991 (“O. Reg. 856/93”), in that Dr. Chopra failed to reveal the exact nature of a secret remedy or treatment used by the member following a proper request to do so;
under paragraph 1(1)14 of Ontario Regulation 856/93 made under the Medicine Act, 1991 (“O. Reg. 856/93”), in that Dr. Chopra made a claim respecting the utility of a remedy, treatment, device or procedure other than a claim which can be supported as reasonable professional opinion;
under paragraph 1(1)5 of Ontario Regulation 856/93 made under the Medicine Act, 1991 (“O. Reg. 856/93”), in that Dr. Chopra has a conflict of interest; and
under paragraph 1(1)34 of Ontario Regulation 856/93 made under the Medicine Act, 1991 (“O. Reg. 856/93”), in that Dr. Chopra engaged in conduct unbecoming of a physician;

The facts stated above also demonstrate that Dr. Chopra is incompetent as defined by subsection 52(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the “Code”), which is Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, in that his professional care of a patient displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment of a nature or to an extent that demonstrates that the member is unfit to continue to practise or that the member’s practice should be restricted. 1991, c. 18, Sched. 2, s. 52 (1); 2007, c. 10, Sched. M, s. 40 (1).

CPSO'S RESPONSE

Following the events above, the patient filed a formal complaint at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

The College considered that Dr. Chopra did nothing wrong, and dismissed the patient's complaint.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Dr. Chopra used his discretionary authority to report patients with high-risk medical conditions to the Ministry of Transportation as a scare tactic to intimidate and coerce a patient into treatment against his will. This caused unnecessary harm and suffering to the patient.

Dr. Chopra is incompetent, in that he displayed a lack of skill and knowledge in patient assessment. He also displayed a lack of knowledge in prescribing narcotic drugs, thus exposing the patient to potential harm.

Dr. Chopra demonstrated that he puts financial gain ahead of the well-being of patients. He prescribed narcotics for an improper purpose without knowing the patient, and without a proper assessment.

By threatening, coercing, and misrepresenting the treatment to the patient, Dr. Chopra failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession. And engaged in conduct, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by physicians as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

It is advised to all patients to avoid any interaction with Dr. Nitin Chopra, as this may cause them unnecessary psychological or physical harm.

Furthermore, the facts above demonstrate that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) puts the interests of its members above the well-being of patients. Thus, encouraging unprofessional and unethical conduct by their members. This also proves that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is incapable of regulating itself, and does not deserve the confidence of the public.

Search a Medication

Just Added