BMA escalates appeal over GMC’s ‘duty of care’ after doctor’s death

The British Medical Association has intensified its challenge against the General Medical Council by supporting a Supreme Court appeal over whether the regulator owes a duty of care to doctors under investigation. The case centres on consultant anaesthetist Dr Sridharan Suresh, who died by suicide in 2018 shortly after receiving notice of a GMC referral.

Dr Suresh had been interviewed by police following an allegation of sexual assault involving a sedated teenage patient. The police investigation was later dropped due to insufficient evidence, and an inquest heard that the sedative drugs used were known to cause hallucinations. The description of the alleged assailant also did not match Dr Suresh. Despite assurances from his employer that no referral would be made, the police submitted a third‑party referral to the GMC without informing him. Two weeks later, the GMC emailed Dr Suresh to confirm that it had opened a fitness to practise investigation and scheduled an Interim Orders Tribunal hearing. He took his own life within hours.

His widow brought a claim arguing that the GMC should have taken reasonable steps to mitigate foreseeable psychiatric harm, including checking on his welfare and communicating the investigation more sensitively. The High Court struck out the claim, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision in July 2026, ruling that the GMC does not owe a duty of care to doctors under investigation. The court accepted that harm was foreseeable but concluded that imposing such a duty would conflict with the regulator’s statutory obligation to protect the public.

The BMA has criticised the ruling, warning that it exposes a serious gap in safeguarding doctors who may be vulnerable during fitness to practise processes. The union argues that while doctors are expected to uphold a duty of care to patients, the regulator should recognise its responsibility to minimise harm to those it investigates. It says the current system remains adversarial and that abrupt, formal communications can have devastating consequences for practitioners already under strain.

The case has prompted wider scrutiny of GMC procedures. Following the 2020 inquest, the coroner issued a prevention of future deaths report, urging the regulator to improve how it identifies vulnerable doctors and how it communicates at the outset of investigations. The GMC said it had made changes, but concerns persist across the profession about the emotional impact of referrals and the lack of structured welfare safeguards.

The BMA’s support for a Supreme Court appeal ensures the issue remains under national scrutiny. If the case proceeds, it could set a significant precedent on whether professional regulators must take active steps to prevent foreseeable harm to those they investigate. For now, the Court of Appeal’s ruling stands, but the profession’s concerns remain unresolved, and the debate over the GMC’s duty of care continues.