Dishonesty sanction upheld in Kumar v GMC

In the matter of Kumar v The General Medical Council (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 820 (Admin), Dr Senthil Kumar, a registered general practitioner who qualified in India and practiced medicine in the United Kingdom since 2008, became involved in a disciplinary proceeding arising from allegations of dishonesty during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The controversy centred on the charge that he had fraudulently used the GMC registration number of another doctor, referred to as Dr A, to gain access to a private Facebook group designed for doctors seeking a return to clinical practice amid the unprecedented challenges of the health crisis. Dr Kumar faced a total of eighteen disciplinary charges brought by the General Medical Council, of which he admitted seventeen, contesting solely the allegation that he had used Dr A’s registration details inappropriately.

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) found that his conduct, characterized by clear inconsistencies in his evidence and contrasted with the unambiguous testimonial account of a key witness, amounted to dishonest behaviour that significantly impaired his fitness to practise. Consequently, the Tribunal imposed an eight-month suspension as a substantive sanction, accompanied by an immediate suspension order intended to protect public confidence while the disciplinary process was ongoing.

Unsatisfied with the outcome, Dr Kumar appealed the decision under Section 40 of the Medical Act 1983, raising several substantive grounds.

Among these, he argued that the proceedings suffered from procedural irregularities, that the allegations lacked sufficient specificity, and that there had been a failure to disclose or properly investigate crucial evidence. He further contended that the sanctions were disproportionate, noting that similar breaches by other professionals had resulted in less severe penalties, and he criticized the aggregation of the immediate suspension with the substantive sanction, observing that this combination effectively extended his total time out of practice beyond what was warranted.

In addition, Dr Kumar challenged the impartiality of the tribunal on the basis that a case manager, who had previously been employed by the GMC’s legal team, was involved in the process, thereby allegedly compromising the separation of duties. However, in his remote hand-down delivered by Mr Justice Dexter Dias, the Court examined each of these grounds with meticulous care.

The judge rejected the complaints regarding procedural irregularities and the claimed prejudicial impact of metadata discrepancies arising from standard document templates, explaining that such issues were incidental and did not affect the tribunal’s overall assessment or the credibility of its findings. Ultimately, Justice Dias upheld the Tribunal’s decision, concluding that the evidence sufficiently substantiated that Dr Kumar had engaged in dishonest conduct that warranted the imposition of an eight-month suspension in the public interest.

The Court determined that the sanction was proportionate to the misconduct, and that the necessity to protect patient safety and maintain public trust in the regulatory system justified both the substantive and immediate suspension orders. As a result, the appeal was dismissed in its entirety, and the disciplinary measures imposed against Dr Kumar were confirmed.

Disclaimer: The accuracy and information of news stories published on this website is accurate on the date of publishing. We endeavour to update stories if information change. You can contact us with change and update requests. Where possible, we will link to sources. Content on this website is for guidance purposes only. We cannot accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.