High Court dismisses doctor’s appeal against GMC erasure decision – Kumar v GMC 2025

The High Court has dismissed the appeal brought by the claimant doctor against the General Medical Council (GMC), upholding the Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s decision to erase his name from the medical register.

In Kumar v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 3017 (Admin) (17 November 2025), the claimant doctor, who first registered with the GMC in 2013, was convicted in 2014 of sexually assaulting a 15‑year‑old girl. He received a community sentence and was placed on the Sex Offenders Register for five years. In 2015, the GMC suspended him for 12 months, citing both the conviction and his failure to report it.

That suspension was repeatedly extended over the following decade, with reviews noting his lack of remediation and failure to maintain clinical skills. By 2025, he had been suspended for nearly ten years without evidence of progress.

At a review hearing in February 2025, the doctor admitted his fitness to practise remained impaired but claimed his conviction was wrongful. His witness statements criticised the GMC, the police, and the tribunal, and were seen as evidence of deteriorating insight.

In April 2025, the Tribunal concluded that continued suspension was no longer appropriate. It highlighted three aggravating factors: persistent lack of insight, significant time to remediate without progress, and deterioration of clinical skills after 15 years away from practice. The Tribunal determined that erasure from the register was the only sanction capable of maintaining public confidence and professional standards.

The claimant doctor appealed on five grounds, including refusal to admit evidence about the Assistant Registrar’s decision to hold a hearing rather than a paper review, alleged irrational departure from a 2017 finding that he had “exceptional insight,” claim that erasure was disproportionate under GMC sanctions guidance, alleged breach of Article 3 ECHR due to disregard of mental health evidence, and allegations of systemic bias and predetermination.

Mr Justice Swift rejected all grounds. He held that the Assistant Registrar’s decision to hold a hearing was correct and not relevant to sanction, that the Tribunal was entitled to reassess insight based on 2025 evidence which showed deterioration, and that erasure was proportionate given the length of suspension, lack of remediation, and failure to maintain skills.

He further found no breach of Article 3, as the claimant doctor provided no medical evidence of ill‑treatment, and dismissed allegations of bias and predetermination, noting that the Tribunal acted properly in proceeding despite his absence.

The appeal was dismissed in full, confirming the doctor’s permanent removal from the medical register. The ruling underscores the GMC’s emphasis on remediation, insight, and maintaining public confidence in the profession.

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.