A lady alleging that her primary care physician molested her stated that he advised her to see him for tests because he had “little hands and it wouldn’t hurt.”
Manish Shah, 53, is accused of abusing eight women, including two adolescents, at a medical clinic on Mawney Road in Romford, east London.
The alleged abuse occurred between October 2009 and July 2013, with accusers alleging that the doctor convinced them to attend unnecessary appointments.
One claimed victim who appeared at the Old Bailey in London this afternoon stated that Shah would call her in every six to eight weeks for internal tests for sexually transmitted illnesses.
The woman informed prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones that she had visited Shah’s clinic since she was a young child.
She told the jury that she initially believed Shah was supporting her.
The prosecutor asked her, “What did you think of Dr. Shah at the time?” She responded, “I believed he was a competent physician.” He would exceed expectations.
When asked by the prosecutor if this impression remained, she responded that it no longer existed.
She stated, “I began to have misgivings in my mind.”
“How often had I been checked?” The character of them. He always appeared to protract. I felt first supported by him. The more appointments I had, the less I believed the motives to be genuine, if that makes sense.
The alleged victim informed the prosecutor that the doctor would be seeing her for “sexually transmitted disease screenings” needing “interior inspections.”
She responded, “Every six to eight weeks” when asked how often the check-ups occurred. He would recommend that I return.’
When asked whether she had questioned the appointments, she responded, “No, I believed him.”
She stated, ‘Initially, I believed it to be normal.
Over time…their frequency became a cause for concern. It took me some time to figure it out.
Since switching physicians, the claimed victim has reported that appointments have been’extremely swift, very suitable,’ and’quite professional’ compared to those with Shah.
She continued, “He would inquire about my parents and family.” He would inquire about school, relationships, and my current interests.
The woman was also questioned by Dominic Benthall, the doctor’s defense attorney.
He questioned, “In retrospect, do you believe he may have been assessing your degree of maturity by speaking to you as a child?”
She responded, “No.” It was more about the direction of my life. It was not written for my level of comprehension. It was to become my friend. That is my sentiment.
I have limited experience with doctors. I did not know how to compare it to anything.
When asked if she remembered Shah joking during vaginal exams, she responded, “He said it was most comfortable to come to him since his hands were little and it wouldn’t hurt.”
Shah, a resident of Romford, denies 23 charges of penetration-based assault and 18 counts of sexual assault.
Earlier in the trial, the court heard that he was a “well-respected” physician who was frequently “booked out.”
The court heard on Wednesday that Shah had recommended women to undergo ‘invasive’ examinations due to a medical necessity or a family history of cancer.
In his opening statement, prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones KC stated, “This case involves sexual attacks committed by a physician on his patients.”
He used his position to convince women to undergo invasive vaginal examinations, breast inspections, and personal examinations when there was no medical need for them.
He gave the illusion of conducting ostensibly medically compliant examinations, but in reality conducted many of the examinations for his own sexual enjoyment.
During one episode, he allegedly left a woman below the waist naked while laying his head on her leg with his hand.
Ms. Karmy-Jones stated that there were ‘obvious lies within the defendant’s medical papers, ostensibly to excuse the examination he conducted’
She continued, “For instance, the idea that the patient had sought an examination, when in fact Mr. Shah had spent considerable time convincing the patient of the seeming medical necessity for the inspection, or implying that they had a family history of cancer.”
In the medical records, these appointments are indicated by the abbreviation’req,’ which can stand for either’requested’ or’required.’
The court was informed that Shah ‘exposed the women to the risk of false positives and needless biopsies’ by disregarding NHS standards for the administration of smear tests to asymptomatic women under the age of 25.
The jury heard that he also performed routine breast exams on asymptomatic women under the age of 50, generating “unnecessary follow-up therapy and accompanying anxiety.”
Prosecutors said that the intrusive internal bimanual vaginal and breast inspections were not “medically justifiable or necessary” despite “multiple statements of concern from other GPs in the clinic.”
The proceeding continues.
A lady alleging that her primary care physician molested her stated that he advised her to see him for tests because he had “little hands and it wouldn’t hurt.”
Manish Shah, 53, is accused of abusing eight women, including two adolescents, at a medical clinic on Mawney Road in Romford, east London.
The alleged abuse occurred between October 2009 and July 2013, with accusers alleging that the doctor convinced them to attend unnecessary appointments.
One claimed victim who appeared at the Old Bailey in London this afternoon stated that Shah would call her in every six to eight weeks for internal tests for sexually transmitted illnesses.
The woman informed prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones that she had visited Shah’s clinic since she was a young child.
She told the jury that she initially believed Shah was supporting her.
The prosecutor asked her, “What did you think of Dr. Shah at the time?” She responded, “I believed he was a competent physician.” He would exceed expectations.
When asked by the prosecutor if this impression remained, she responded that it no longer existed.
She stated, “I began to have misgivings in my mind.”
“How often had I been checked?” The character of them. He always appeared to protract. I felt first supported by him. The more appointments I had, the less I believed the motives to be genuine, if that makes sense.
The alleged victim informed the prosecutor that the doctor would be seeing her for “sexually transmitted disease screenings” needing “interior inspections.”
She responded, “Every six to eight weeks” when asked how often the check-ups occurred. He would recommend that I return.’
When asked whether she had questioned the appointments, she responded, “No, I believed him.”
She stated, ‘Initially, I believed it to be normal.
Over time…their frequency became a cause for concern. It took me some time to figure it out.
Since switching physicians, the claimed victim has reported that appointments have been’extremely swift, very suitable,’ and’quite professional’ compared to those with Shah.
She continued, “He would inquire about my parents and family.” He would inquire about school, relationships, and my current interests.
The woman was also questioned by Dominic Benthall, the doctor’s defense attorney.
He questioned, “In retrospect, do you believe he may have been assessing your degree of maturity by speaking to you as a child?”
She responded, “No.” It was more about the direction of my life. It was not written for my level of comprehension. It was to become my friend. That is my sentiment.
I have limited experience with doctors. I did not know how to compare it to anything.
When asked if she remembered Shah joking during vaginal exams, she responded, “He said it was most comfortable to come to him since his hands were little and it wouldn’t hurt.”
Shah, a resident of Romford, denies 23 charges of penetration-based assault and 18 counts of sexual assault.
Earlier in the trial, the court heard that he was a “well-respected” physician who was frequently “booked out.”
The court heard on Wednesday that Shah had recommended women to undergo ‘invasive’ examinations due to a medical necessity or a family history of cancer.
In his opening statement, prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones KC stated, “This case involves sexual attacks committed by a physician on his patients.”
He used his position to convince women to undergo invasive vaginal examinations, breast inspections, and personal examinations when there was no medical need for them.
He gave the illusion of conducting ostensibly medically compliant examinations, but in reality conducted many of the examinations for his own sexual enjoyment.
During one episode, he allegedly left a woman below the waist naked while laying his head on her leg with his hand.
Ms. Karmy-Jones stated that there were ‘obvious lies within the defendant’s medical papers, ostensibly to excuse the examination he conducted’
She continued, “For instance, the idea that the patient had sought an examination, when in fact Mr. Shah had spent considerable time convincing the patient of the seeming medical necessity for the inspection, or implying that they had a family history of cancer.”
In the medical records, these appointments are indicated by the abbreviation’req,’ which can stand for either’requested’ or’required.’
The court was informed that Shah ‘exposed the women to the risk of false positives and needless biopsies’ by disregarding NHS standards for the administration of smear tests to asymptomatic women under the age of 25.
The jury heard that he also performed routine breast exams on asymptomatic women under the age of 50, generating “unnecessary follow-up therapy and accompanying anxiety.”
Prosecutors said that the intrusive internal bimanual vaginal and breast inspections were not “medically justifiable or necessary” despite “multiple statements of concern from other GPs in the clinic.”
The proceeding continues.