Panel hears second complaint against Cape Breton doctor

New details are emerging about complaints against a Cape Breton obstetrician who's facing allegations of professional misconduct at a hearing of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia.

Three women have lodged complaints about the treatment they received from Dr. Manivasan Moodley, who's practised in both Cape Breton and the Antigonish area.

The five-member panel hearing complaints against Moodley started proceedings earlier this week in Bedford. Evidence in the first three days was devoted almost entirely to a single complaint, filed by a woman who said Moodley performed a surgical procedure against her wishes during childbirth. 

On Thursday, the panel began hearing evidence about a second complaint involving a complicated pregnancy and premature birth in the fall of 2020 at Cape Breton Regional Hospital in Sydney. The first witness was the husband of the complainant, who gave birth two months ahead of her due date. Like many of the witnesses at the hearing, his identity is banned from publication.

In his testimony, he said problems were detected early in the pregnancy and his wife was sent to the IWK Health Centre in Halifax, which specializes in children's and maternity care. She was admitted and kept on bed rest for weeks before being cleared to return to Cape Breton. She had been home for about a week when her water broke, her partner said, and she was rushed to the Sydney hospital.

He said his first complaint was that when they arrived, no wheelchairs were readily available and he had to go hunting for one to get her safely transported to the neonatal unit.

A couple of obstetricians looked after the woman until the weekend, when Moodley took over.

'Things went really wrong'

The man said his partner was experiencing severe lower back pain that came in waves and he began using an app on his phone to record the length and duration of the episodes.

He said he believed the data he was recording indicated his wife was in labour but Moodley ignored him when he tried to show the readings to the doctor. He said Moodley instead sent him to a pharmacy to buy an over-the-counter pain cream. The man testified that he felt "like an idiot" being sent on that errand.

He said Moodley prescribed Tylenol and later Dilaudid, but neither medication seemed to do anything to lessen the pain, which at one point was so intense that his partner vomited. She requested a caesarean birth but was told that wasn't an option. The man said it wasn't explained why a C-section wasn't an option.

Moodley's lawyer, Muneeza Sheikh, asked the man whether he had a theory about why a C-section was denied. He said he believed it was because the hospital was under scrutiny for the number of C-sections being performed there. The man said that probably explains why there's no record of his partner's request for the procedure.

The man said his infant son was finally delivered late that evening and immediately rushed to the hospital's neonatal intensive care unit because of complications.

One of the complaints the man and his partner have registered is that the equipment meant to detect the woman's pain was broken and as a result didn't detect her contractions.

"Things were wrong," the man said. "Things went really wrong."

He blamed Moodley for a lack of communication and for failing to consider the possibility his wife was experiencing labour pain.

'We shouldn't have had to go through this'

"We shouldn't have had to go through this," the man said, his voice breaking. He said they decided to file a complaint to try to ensure no one else had to go through a similar experience.

Unlike the first complaint, which focuses exclusively on Moodley's decision to perform an episiotomy during childbirth, this complaint is not confined to Moodley alone. The man testified that he and his partner also filed complaints against two other doctors. But he was cautioned by the college not to name the other physicians.

The examination of witnesses has taken much longer than originally estimated and the hearing has fallen far behind schedule. Three days are set aside next week for more testimony but in the meantime, lawyers are trying to find more days to finish the hearing, which could spill into next year.