A doctor could be sacked for falling in love with a man she later got engaged to and had a child with when he was a patient at her private practice.
Dr Natalia Bogatcheva, 40, started dating the property developer after she met him through her boss and the two eventually moved in together, had a son and is getting married later this year. However, she has now been accused of having an ‘improper emotional relationship’ with her fiancee after she was caught looking into his medical records.
Her boss Dr Cristiana Romete managing director at the Roc Clinic in London discovered the 5am checks and raised concerns after ‘analysis of electoral records.’ Police officer ‘stole £65 from dead man’s wallet then tried to cover it up’ Bogatcheva accessed her partner’s files after she became suspicious of his ex-girlfriend moving into one of his flats.
She admitted getting into a relationship with the man, named only as Patient A, but denied it happening during the time he was a patient, at a misconduct with hearing at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service in Manchester. He had been a patient of Dr Romete for six years when he met Bogatcheva in 2016.
The two had a couple of consultations together after Dr Romete temporarily left the practice. Patient A told the hearing: ‘I met Dr Romete through being my parents’ doctor and I would describe her as a friend. I saw her through various consultations. She would invite me to soirées and she would ask if I could come to her evening get-together with friends.
‘I saw Natalia face-to-face twice. On 19th May I had a missed call from the practice who mistakenly believed I called them to arrange an appointment.
‘I called Natalia back as I had her number. We confirmed that nothing was amiss. I went away to France to visit my daughter then I came back at the end of June and I sent her a text message and asked if she would like to go out. I hadn’t seen her as a patient for a long time.
‘I accept that a doctor and patient cannot see each other but in my opinion, I had not seen her as a patient for some considerable time, I was not at that practice anymore so I didn’t see any harm in changing the tone of conversation.’
He went on to say that Bogatcheva ‘never encouraged’ him to ask her out, but she agreed to have coffee with him and the two attended a concert Dr Romete asked her patient if he wanted to attend.
Patient A said he believed Dr Romete was aware of his relationship with Natalie and said she even helped him meet her after they had a fight about an ex-girlfriend living in one of his properties.
He said: ‘Natalia called me out on it, and she was quite right. I’m aware she accessed my medical records. I called up the next morning and asked Dr Romete if she could get me an appointment with Natalia as she wasn’t answering my calls or texts.
‘Dr Romete made an appointment for me to see her the same day. She was acting as a friend. I was a desperate man and I said to her: “can you help me out here – I got a same day appointment”.
I did see her that day but I can’t remember if it was on the appointment. Driver leaves motorcyclist with broken rib after ‘getting hfoot stuck on accelerator’ ‘I don’t think it was inappropriate for her to be looking at my medical records, it’s an attachment thing, or a reminder. There was no issue.
When Natalia became pregnant with my son, it was the most fantastic thing that could have happened to me. It’s a wonderful thing although I think at the time I found out I was in shock.
‘Since then my relationship with Natalie has flourished my life has flourished and my work life has been getting better and better. I didn’t feel trapped by it, I was accepting of it. We are going to get married this year and I plan to remain together until I die.’
A lawyer for the General Medical Council (GMC) claims Bogatcheva started a relationship with Patient A six weeks after her last consultation.
Emma Gilsenan said: ‘It is the GMC case that she began an inappropriate emotional relationship which developed into a s3xual relationship in or around August 2016. Less than three months after her last consultation with patient A, she accessed Patient A’s medical records inappropriately on three separate occasions.’