Radiologist Dr Chris Cadman was accused of physically, sexually and mentally abusing two women between December 2013 and January 2016.
The Glasgow University graduate had stood to be struck off if the allegations were found to have been proved.
It was alleged that Cadman had physically grabbed an ex-partner and forced her to have sex with him despite her saying no.
It was further alleged that he had taken a naked picture of another ex-partner, who was six months pregnant at the time, without her consent.
Cadman then was alleged to have told this partner: “Ugh this is what I have to look at in the morning” and “it’s disgusting”.
The doctor was accused of telling his former partner upon learning of her pregnancy: “I hope you’re going to be happy being a single mother”.
In a separate incident upon learning his other partner’s pregnancy, Cadman allegedly told her the baby “had destroyed” his life.
Ms Hudson, the lawyer acting on behalf of the General Medical Council (GMC), submitted that Cadman’s behaviour did not amount to serious misconduct.
Mr Colman, Cadman’s lawyer, told the hearing how emails and texts sent were not abusive but were in fact “a private matter in the context of a difficult relationship.”
This, Colman argued, didn’t amount to professional misconduct let alone impair Cadman’s fitness to practice.
The tribunal considered as to whether Cadman had ever brought patients to harm or brought the medical profession into disrepute.
They deliberated whether he would breach a tenet of the medical profession or if he had ever or would ever act dishonestly.
They found all allegations to be “not proved” apart from one where Cadman messaged one of his former partner’s despite her requesting that he does not contact her.
The tribunal was subsequently satisfied given all the facts in this case that Dr Cadman’s behaviour had not breached good medical practice.
They concluded: “The tribunal considered that Dr Cadman’s behaviour did not cross the threshold to represent misconduct and that no part of GMP had been breached.
“Accordingly, the tribunal was satisfied, given the facts and circumstances of this case, that Dr Cadman’s behaviour did not amount to serious misconduct.
“It follows, therefore, that Dr Cadman’s fitness to practise is not impaired.
“Accordingly, the tribunal finds that Dr Cadman’s fitness to practise is
not impaired by reason of misconduct.”