The General Medical Council (GMC) is reportedly seeking High Court approval to overturn Dr Manjula Arora’s suspension after concluding an MPT decision “incorrectly” applied the dishonesty test.

Dr Manjula Arora, was reported to the regulator after she wrongly told IT officials she had been “promised” the device by her boss when, in fact, he “noted her interest” in getting one.

That led to a hearing at The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) last month, which suspended Dr Arora for 28 days for dishonesty, serious professional misconduct and “impaired” ability to practise medicine.

Following a review of the MPTS decision, in which GMC CEO Charlie Massey said:

‘It is absolutely right that the GMC’s decisions about a doctor’s ability to practise in the UK are open to scrutiny.

It has now been reported that the GMC has now overturned her suspension after it decided the dishonesty test was “incorrectly” applied, subject to High Court approval.

DAUK co-chair Dr Jenny Vaughan told i:

“The Doctors’ Association is naturally delighted that the finding of dishonesty in the case of Dr Arora was found to be wrong. Dr Arora has been put through an extraordinary ordeal which she did not deserve. We are extremely concerned that the case was ever brought to a Fitness to Practice hearing in the first place.

“The review organised by the General Medical Council must continue and there should concurrently be an external root and branch reform of their processes because this case should never have happened. There should also be full investigation and disclosure of any systems failures which were associated with this case by the provider, Mastercall. Their processes of local investigation should also be opened to complete scrutiny.”

A GMC spokesperson said:

“Dr Arora has appealed the decision of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal. Having considered the tribunal’s decisions and sought the views of external counsel, we believe that the dishonesty test was applied incorrectly by the tribunal.

“That means that the findings of dishonesty, impairment and sanction should not stand and so we have agreed with the doctor’s representative to dispose of the appeal without the need for a hearing. Should the court approve that agreement the doctor will have full registration with a license to practise, and no fitness to practise finding recorded on her registration.”

Insight Works Training