From left, Raissa Sidhu, Raj Sidhu, and Claudia Sidhu, of SRS Hair Clinic, in June 2014. Photo / Supplied
From left, Raissa Sidhu, Raj Sidhu, and Claudia Sidhu, of SRS Hair Clinic, in June 2014. Photo / Supplied
A claim by hair loss clinic owner “Dr Raj” that he is a “third-generation doctor” despite not being a registered medical doctor in New Zealand, will be investigated by the Ministry of Health.
However, according to his daughter, Rupinder Singh Sidhu has a medical degree from India but choosesnot to be registered in New Zealand.
The claim on the SRS Hair Clinic website that Sidhu was a “third-generation doctor” was removed after an anonymous complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority in June.
The complainant said it was not possible for the public to understand Sidhu had non-medical qualifications in complementary medicine.
The ASA referred the complainant to the Health and Disability Commissioner, saying the HDC had senior jurisdiction over the ASA.
The complainant, a medical doctor who did not want to be named, said she found the website was worded in a way that made her question whether Dr Raj was a doctor and she checked the Medical Council register to find he was not.
“Here I am, (from a medical background), and I struggled to work out if that guy was actually a doctor. It read to me like he was totally a doctor.”
When she discovered overwise the surgeon said she was “furious” because while she was able to advocate for herself she was concerned vulnerable patients might be misled.
SRS runs three hair loss treatment clinics in Auckland, Hamilton, and Tauranga, and previously in Australia.
The description of Sidhu as a third-generation doctor remained on the Australian version of the website.
Daughter Raissa Sidhu, who works at the Auckland clinic, spoke on behalf of her father when NZME contacted the clinic.
She said there were several reasons why he could use the title of doctor.
She claimed he had a medical degree that enabled him to use the title Dr, that the title of doctor was “not protected” and that the website made it clear he did not practise as a medical doctor but as an alternative medicine doctor.
The website bio that resulted in a doctor complaining that Rupinder Singh Sidhu was using the title doctor when he was not registered with the Medical Council of New Zealand.
She added that he had been retired for 10 years and the reference had been removed, although “Dr” remains in the SRS logo which is trademarked.
“The whole thing is actually moot because he’s not been practising for at least a decade,” she said.
“He’s never actually offered any services in the capacity as a medical practitioner and that’s quite clearly mentioned multiple times throughout the website as well.”
When asked if consumers might assume he was a medical doctor as well as an Ayurveda (ancient Indian medical system) practitioner, Raissa said while Sidhu trained as a medical doctor he’d never practised as one or registered in New Zealand.
She said the website made it clear his background and focus were in natural medicine.
“I think they [the complainant] were just not happy with him using the doctor title which he is entitled to based on his degrees and what he’s actually studied in the past.”
This included a Doctor of Medicine in Alternative Medicines (MDAM) from India and a naturopathic degree from Germany.
She said the complaint had been very distressing for her father who was now 60.
However, the complainant said she had believed Sidhu was still practising based on the website before it was updated.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Health said under section 7 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, a person who was not registered with the Medical Council may not “do anything that is calculated to suggest that they are a medical doctor or that they are willing to practise as a medical doctor in New Zealand”.
“Section 7 of the Act also makes it an offence to use names, words, titles, initials, abbreviations or descriptions stating or implying that an unregistered person is a medical doctor or other registered health practitioner.”
A breach could result in a fine of up to $10,000 on conviction, although the ministry’s approach was to first seek voluntary compliance, such as getting the person to stop referring to themselves as a doctor.
However, the spokesman said referring to oneself as a “Dr” was not necessarily a breach of the Act as long as the person describing themselves as a doctor was not stating or implying that they were a registered medical doctor.
“In the absence of a statement from the person that they are not a registered medical doctor, we consider the context in which the use of the term Dr is made, and whether a reasonable person would assume that this person was a medical doctor based on the description of their qualifications, experience, and the services they offer.”
The spokesman said the ministry would assess the case to determine whether there was a potential breach of the Act.
In 2019 the ministry took no further action in a case involving a homeopath who used the title “Dr” in his nickname, despite not being registered.
Natalie Akoorie is the Open Justice deputy editor, based in Waikato and covering crime and justice nationally. Natalie first joined the Herald in 2011 and has been a journalist in New Zealand and overseas for 27 years, recently covering health, social issues, local government, and the regions.
