Endocrinologist who asked nurse if she ‘delivered her brain with her baby’ loses unfair dismissal case
An endocrinologist who asked a nurse if she had “delivered her brain together with her baby” has lost his unfair dismissal claim after a commission found he regularly bullied her and other nurses.
Dr Avinash Suryawanshi was sacked by Sydney’s Concord Repatriation General Hospital last year when an external investigation found that his behaviour had breached NSW Health policy on 34 occasions.
Originally appointed as the director of diabetes at the hospital, he appealed to the Industrial Relations Commission of NSW seeking reinstatement, arguing his sacking was illegal and amounted to victimisation.
The commission heard that Dr Suryawanshi had been unhappy when a nurse-led model of diabetes education was introduced at the hospital.
He denied bullying three diabetes nurse educators, claiming the nurses’ evidence was inconsistent and unreliable and that the findings regarding his misconduct were “misconceived, overstated or taken out of context”.
But the commission rejected his arguments, finding that the evidence supported a pattern of conduct that amounted to him bullying, belittling and harassing them.
Among the substantiated allegations was that Dr Suryawanshi had asked a nurse practitioner during a meeting back in October 2023, “Did you deliver your brain together with your baby?”
He then told her she was underperforming and needed English lessons.
When she returned to the hospital in 2022 from maternity leave after her second child, he asked, “Does your husband not know how to use contraceptive, or do I need to talk to him?”
According to the commission, Dr Suryawanshi also lodged an incident report alleging the nurse practitioner had given a patient the wrong instructions regarding their insulin — despite not changing the dose when he saw the patient himself and having apparently made no clinical notes suggesting the patient had deteriorated as a result of her alleged actions.
“[This nurse] was the staff member most directly and significantly affected,” Commissioner Alison McRobert found.
“Her evidence concerned conduct directed to her personally and described ongoing feelings of anxiety, distress and humiliation, together with concern about adverse consequences for her employment.”
Another registered nurse received a cryptic email from Dr Suryawanshi one evening. It read: “Mo ONE nit suite shiru hitsuo wa arimasen.”
This was followed by: “Figure out the above language. If you can’t, consider it abuse from a savage colleague.”
The nurse told the commission that she had used an online translation tool, which produced meanings including, “Nice to have known you,” and, “No more secrets with DNEs.”
The email also included the words: “Nice to have known you. Will always have respect for who you truly are … Probably something you don’t know about yourself.”
The commissioner wrote in her judgement: “[The nurse’s] evidence was that the email caused her considerable distress, that she felt anxious and worried for her safety and that she was unable to sleep that night.”
In an attempt to mitigate the risk of Dr Suryawanshi’s behaviour, the hospital allowed the nurses to consult with patients on a different floor of the hospital. In response, he allegedly directed registrars not to contact them with patient referrals.
While not all of the allegations against Dr Suryawanshi were substantiated, overall, his behaviour formed a pattern that caused “stress, intimidation and anxiety” among staff, Commissioner McRobert concluded.
“On the findings I have made, [his] misconduct was neither trivial nor isolated in nature and was not confined to a single lapse.
“Having regard to its nature, repetition and context, the substantiated misconduct, considered on its own, was capable of justifying dismissal.”
The commissioner said she took into account Dr Suryawanshi’s previously unblemished record and that his loss of income had personal financial consequences for him and his family.
But given the seriousness and nature of his misconduct, those consequences did not render the dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable, she wrote.
“I also note that the dismissal brought the applicant’s employment with the respondent to an end but did not, of itself, operate as a permanent bar to the practice of his profession.”
Read more: Nurse sacked after accidentally defibrillating awake patient
More information: Industrial Relations Commission of NSW; 2 Apr 2026.
