Mamta Dogra tilts her head back and smiles. But she has nothing to giggle about now, after her boss at Medibank finds out she smashed a little boy's head into the sink

A suburban woman convicted this week of slamming a boy's head into the bathroom sink is now in danger of being fired by Medibank.

The health insurer broke its silence on employee Mamta Dogra's actions on Friday after Daily Mail Australia revealed the 47-year-old Sydney woman had been convicted of assaulting a little boy but still wanted to work with children.

In a statement, a Medibank spokeswoman said it takes such cases “very seriously and acts accordingly and quickly.”

It is understood Dogra – who has since moved to Adelaide to work for the company – will be suspended over her assault convictions, pending an internal investigation, and may be dismissed.

Dogra tried to challenge a conviction for her crimes at Sydney's Downing Center Local Court on the grounds that she might fail criminal justice and working with children checks.

Her lawyer Anthony O'Dea submitted references to the court this week saying she was 'loving, kind and generous'.

That submission was rejected by Magistrate Glenn Bartley as being 'out of touch with reality'.

The 47-year-old Medibank adviser could end up being sacked as the health insurer told Daily Mail Australia it takes such cases 'very seriously and acts accordingly and quickly'

Dogra emigrated from India to Australia in 2004 to marry an Indian Australian and committed the most serious attack in 2018.

Mr O'Dea said Dogra was at risk of losing her job if she could not pass the police background and working with children checks that Medibank required her to do as an adviser whose clients were accompanied by children.

Magistrate Glenn Bartley refused, saying Dogra 'had beaten' [the six-year-old boy’s] head into a sink causing a laceration that bled profusely, while telling him to 'shut up' and refusing to call an ambulance.

Some details of the case cannot be reported for legal reasons.

Now Medibank Australia has revealed that in cases like Dogra's, the employee faces immediate suspension and possible dismissal.

In a statement to Daily Mail Australia, Medibank said it was “unable to comment on specific employees” but “we can say that we take these types of cases very seriously and act accordingly and quickly.”

READ MORE: Mamta Dogra claims she was 'loving' and rejected by judge

Mamta Dogra's claims that she was 'kind' and 'generous' were rejected in the judgment

“This includes immediately dismissing an employee to investigate any allegations of misconduct or other serious matters, the outcome of which may include termination of employment.

'The Working with Children Check is a screening process for (re)assessing people who work with or care for children.'

The health insurer said it has “conducted law enforcement background checks on all of our employees before they begin working for us.”

Downing Center Local Court heard on Tuesday that Dogra had a clean criminal record prior to her offending, something Magistrate Bartley said he took into account when sentencing her.

While he expressed some frustration at being denied sentencing options such as community supervision because Dogra had moved interstate, he said community deterrence “was an important consideration.”

“Young children cannot protect themselves from the actions of adults… where that protective trust is abused,” the magistrate said.

Dogra's lawyer partly agreed, saying: 'You can't have people walking around… throwing children under the sink and there is community protection', but insisting that 'my client does not fall into that category'.

“(Character) references show that she is… kind and generous… the community can feel safe because they are not at risk of violence.”

Magistrate Bartley said he would give some of Dogra's references 'little weight' and that 'slamming' [the boy’s] head in a hard sink hardly fits in with that .'

When Mr O'Dea argued that 'my client deserves credit', the magistrate replied: 'How? I found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

“I found that beyond a reasonable doubt…she pushed [the boy] in a hard object. I didn't really accept her as a source of great truth.'

The magistrate also rejected Dogra's arguments that “money was tight” as she was represented by three different lawyers at one point.

“This case has been going on for a long time…on and on and on,” he said.

The magistrate could not consider giving Dogra an Intensive Corrections Order, which is essentially a prison sentence served in the community, because she now lives in South Australia and requires supervision.

He said that given all the allegations, she had not crossed the threshold for imposing such an order.

He imposed a three-year community corrections order on her and fined her a total of $17,500.