A FORMER patient told a court she felt “violated” after being given an intimate examination by a doctor on trial for 18 sexual assaults.
Earlier on Friday, the young mum left the witness stand in tears after giving evidence at the trial of Dr Yenugula Srinivas, 40, a locum GP who had worked at surgeries in Oxford and Islip.
The doctor has been accused of carrying out unnecessary or improper examinations on 12 women following a police investigation.
Dr Srinivas, who lived in Heathfield near Bletchingdon at the time of the alleged assaults in 2008 and 2009, has denied the charges.
The patient, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, told the court she had gone to see Dr Srinivas at the Bury Knowle Health Centre in Headington, Oxford, to get the results of blood tests over a swollen leg.
She told Oxford Crown Court she was surprised when Dr Srinivas asked to perform an internal examination.
“I was getting ready to leave and I put my jacket on. He said: ‘Shall we do the internal exam?’. I was quite shocked,” said the former patient.
When asked by prosecution barrister Peter Coombe how she had felt following the examination, the patient replied: “Violated.”
Barrister Alan Jenkins, for the defence, asked her why she then went back to see Dr Srinivas for a further appointment if she felt his conduct had been improper.
“It doesn’t mean you’re scared of someone just because they may have violated you,” she replied.
Another woman who was allegedly sexually assaulted by Dr Srinivas gave evidence from Sweden via videolink.
She told the court Dr Srinivas had asked her to remove her jeans before examining her legs after she had gone to a surgery in Islip with headaches she thought could be linked to her contraceptive medication.
The doctor said he was checking for possible deep vein thrombosis brought on by the contraceptive pill, she told the court.
When asked by the prosecution how the examination made her feel, she said: “I did wonder why and I did ask him, but his explanation was quite reasonable so I trusted him and went with it.”
When questioned by the defence, the woman agreed it would probably have been necessary for her to remove her jeans in order to carry out a leg examination.
The case continues.
> For all the latest on the case see Friday’s Bicester Review.