Dr. Ampreet Singh – February 2019

This matter came before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Optometrists of Ontario this 6th day February 2019, in Toronto, Ontario, at 9:45 a.m. at 65 St. Clair Ave. E.

  1. THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE FOUND that Dr. Singh committed an act or acts of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the “Code”) being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991 C.18, and defined in the following paragraphs:

a. paragraph 1.12 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 in that he failed, without reasonable cause, to provide certain patients who needed a prescription for vision correction with a written, signed and dated prescription for subnormal vision devices, contact lenses or eye glasses after he had assessed their eyes;
b. paragraph 1.14 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 in that he has failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession in respect of the oculo-visual assessments he conducted on certain patients and for failing to provide certain patients with his contact information; and
c. paragraph 1.24 in that he failed to make and maintain records in accordance with Part IV of Ontario Regulation 119/94

2. THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE ORDERED:

a. That Dr. Singh be reprimanded;
b. That Dr. Singh pay the College’s costs in the amount of $7,500 payable to the College of Optometrists of Ontario within six months of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee;
c. That the Registrar be directed to suspend Dr. Singh’s certificate of registration for a period of two weeks commencing February 25, 2019;
d. That a condition be imposed on Dr. Singh’s certificate of registration that he submit a written essay, which is in his own words, to the Registrar of at least 1,000 words as follows:

i. The essay shall reflect:

        1. The appropriate documenting and maintaining of patient records with an emphasis on documenting patients’ health and oculo-visual history;
        2. The required steps involved in completing an appropriate oculo-visual assessment;
        3. The circumstances in which a patient should be dilated and the manner in which that is appropriately done;
        4. The purpose of the requirement for mandatory prescription release; and
        5. Dr. Singh’s reflections on how the eye examinations provided to the patients at issue in his discipline hearing should have been handled differently.

ii. The essay shall be completed within three (3) months of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee.
iii. The Registrar shall determine whether or not the essay is acceptable; if it is not, Dr. Singh will be required to correct it to the Registrar’s satisfaction.

e. That a condition be imposed on Dr. Singh’s certificate of registration that he shall undergo a practice inspection within twelve (12) months of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee. The details of which are as follows:

i. The Registrar shall assign an assessor to conduct an inspection of twenty-five (25) patient records for patients seen after the suspension has been served and the essay completed.
ii. The assessor shall review the records in the areas that are relevant to the allegations only and report the results of the inspection to the Registrar.
iii. In the event that any deficiencies are noted in the report of the inspection, the Registrar shall make a report to the Inquires, Complaints and Reports Committee;
iv. Dr. Singh shall be given five (5) business days’ notice prior to the College representative attending his practice to obtain the records; and
v. The practice inspection shall be conducted at Dr. Singh’s expense, to a maximum of $1,500.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Singh waived his right to appeal and the Discipline Committee delivered the reprimand.

Read the full Discipline decision