High court overturns GMC suspension of consultant obstetrician over consent failings

A High Court judge has overturned the suspension of a senior obstetrics consultant who was found to have failed to obtain informed consent during a traumatic childbirth procedure, ruling that striking the balance between public confidence and fairness to the doctor required “no further action” beyond a finding of impaired fitness to practise.

In Thampi v General Medical Council [2026] EWHC 1036 (Admin) (01 May 2026, the Administrative Court upheld findings that the consultant obstetrician failed to communicate appropriately with a patient during labour at Milton Keynes University Hospital in 2016 and did not obtain informed consent for the use of forceps during delivery.

However, the court quashed a three-week suspension imposed by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT), concluding that the sanction was disproportionate because it would almost certainly have ended Dr Thampi’s career.

The ruling, handed down by Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Kinnier KC on 1 May, leaves intact the finding that Dr Thampi’s fitness to practise was impaired, but substitutes “no further action” in place of suspension.

The case centred on the birth of Patient A’s first child in October 2016. During a prolonged labour, Dr Thampi decided that an assisted vaginal delivery was clinically necessary because of concerns over the baby’s condition. A Kiwi vacuum device was initially used before forceps were ultimately employed to deliver the baby.

Patient A later complained that she had repeatedly expressed opposition to forceps and wanted a caesarean section, but felt pressured into accepting instrumental delivery. She alleged that Dr Thampi failed to discuss adequately the risks and benefits of alternative delivery options and used fear about the baby’s welfare to obtain compliance.

Following internal disciplinary proceedings at the hospital trust, Dr Thampi received a first written warning. The matter was later referred to the GMC in 2020.

After hearings in 2024, the MPT found that Dr Thampi failed to provide sufficient information about the increased likelihood that instrumental delivery could fail because of the patient’s medical condition and body mass index. The tribunal also concluded she failed to discuss adequately the option of caesarean section and did not properly obtain informed consent before forceps were used.

The tribunal described the failures as “serious matters” and concluded they represented a significant departure from professional standards governing consent and communication with patients.

Although the MPT accepted that Dr Thampi was an experienced and otherwise highly regarded clinician with insight, remediation, and a low risk of repetition, it ruled that a finding of impairment was necessary in the public interest to maintain confidence in the medical profession.

In its impairment ruling, the tribunal also stated that “psychological harm was caused to Patient A”.

That finding became central to the appeal.

Dr Thampi argued that no allegation of psychological harm had ever formed part of the case and that there had been no expert evidence to support such a conclusion. The court agreed that the tribunal had erred in making the finding.

Judge Kinnier said the MPT had no proper evidential basis for concluding that Patient A had suffered “psychological harm”, noting that the term implied clinical injury rather than ordinary distress.

“There was no such allegation before the MPT; there was no expert evidence or relevant reasoning to support the conclusion,” the judge said.

Despite that error, the court upheld the finding of impairment, ruling that the central misconduct remained Dr Thampi’s failure to communicate appropriately and obtain informed consent.

“The linked failures to communicate appropriately and to obtain informed consent are serious,” the judge wrote, adding that patients “place trust in doctors to give them the information they need and to listen to them”.

The court, however, found fault with the sanction imposed.

Judge Kinnier held that the tribunal had incorrectly treated “exceptional circumstances” as a threshold test before it could consider taking no action after a finding of impairment. He also ruled that the panel failed properly to assess proportionality because it underestimated the certainty that even a short suspension would trigger Dr Thampi’s dismissal under the terms of her employment contract.

Evidence before the tribunal showed her NHS locum contract required continuous registration and would terminate automatically if she were suspended.

“By placing insufficient weight on the evidence and hoping that Dr Thampi would not be dismissed, proportionality was weighed against a hypothetical, not an actual, situation,” the judge said.

The court noted several substantial mitigating factors, including that the incident was isolated, involved only one patient, occurred nearly a decade ago, involved no findings of clinical negligence, and had not been repeated. The judge also highlighted “impressive” testimonials praising Dr Thampi’s competence, patient care and communication skills.

In the final ruling, the court concluded that the finding of impairment alone was sufficient to uphold professional standards and public confidence.

“No action is an unusual course following a finding of impairment,” Judge Kinnier acknowledged, “but the positive factors in Dr Thampi’s favour are, on any view, significant.”

The appeal against impairment was dismissed, but the appeal against sanction succeeded. The three-week suspension was overturned and replaced with no further sanction beyond the impairment finding.

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.