GMC loses MPTS sanction appeal in GMC v Shah

In General Medical Council v Shah [2025] EWHC 899 (Admin), the case revolved around disciplinary proceedings initiated against Mr. Rajesh Shah, a consultant thoracic surgeon with decades of experience who qualified in India and practiced in the United Kingdom.

The matter arose from a series of allegations spanning from 2005 to 2021 concerning inappropriate conduct and sexual misconduct in the workplace. The allegations primarily centred on Mr. Shah’s interactions with two female colleagues. In the first instance, he was accused of using derogatory language and engaging in behaviour—such as referring to a colleague as “good girl” and calling another a “bird”—which, while he admitted to, was determined to have created an intimidating and degrading environment rather than constituting outright sexual harassment due to its alleged consensual nature.

However, more serious were the incidents involving a second colleague, Colleague B, where Mr. Shah was found to have engaged in unwanted physical contact.

Following a detailed disciplinary hearing before a Medical Practitioners Tribunal, the tribunal found that his conduct, especially those involving Colleague B, amounted to serious misconduct that brought the medical profession into disrepute and evidenced a breach of the core principles of good medical practice. Based on these findings, the tribunal imposed a sanction of a 12-month suspension from medical practice, coupled with an immediate order to commence the suspension and the stipulation of a review hearing shortly before its conclusion, thereby providing Mr. Shah an opportunity to demonstrate further remediation of his behavior.

The General Medical Council (GMC) subsequently appealed the tribunal’s decision under Section 40A of the Medical Act 1983, contending that the tribunal had erred both in law and in its analysis of the evidence.

The GMC argued that the disciplinary findings, particularly regarding the assessment of “impairment” of Mr. Shah’s fitness to practise arising from his misconduct, were flawed. They insisted that the tribunal had understated the gravity of the sexual misconduct and that the sanction of a 12-month suspension was grossly disproportionate given the serious nature of the offences.

In the GMC’s view, the appropriate response should have been erasure from the medical register, thereby permanently barring Mr. Shah from practising, to maintain public confidence and ensure patient safety. In contrast,

Mr. Shah supported the tribunal’s decision, emphasizing his long-standing good character, decades of service in the profession, and his tangible remediation efforts, including attending professional boundaries training and providing reflective statements about his conduct.

After carefully reviewing the case, Mr. Justice Kerr concluded that while Mr. Shah’s conduct—especially the unwanted sexual touching of Colleague B—was undeniably serious and detrimental to the reputation of the medical profession, the tribunal had not exceeded its discretion in its assessment. The Court appreciated that there were both aggravating factors, such as the repeated nature of the misconduct and the abuse of his senior position, and mitigating factors, including expressions of remorse and evidence of ongoing remedial efforts.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the GMC’s appeal, holding that the tribunal’s determination of a 12-month suspension with a scheduled review was proportionate, legally sound, and sufficient to uphold public confidence while acknowledging the potential for Mr. Shah’s professional rehabilitation.

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.