High Court overturns “lenient” suspension sanction

In General Medical Council v Konathala [2025] EWHC 1550 (Admin), the High Court overturned a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) decision to suspend a GP for 12 months, ruling that erasure from the medical register was the only appropriate sanction for serious sexual misconduct.

Case background

The case concerned Dr Varaha Konathala, a GP with a previously unblemished 42-year career. In June 2019, he conducted a breast examination on a young female patient—referred to as Patient A—who had attended with ankle pain and a request for a repeat contraceptive prescription.

The MPT found the examination was sexually motivated, lacked clinical justification, was performed without consent or a chaperone, and involved inappropriate physical contact. Despite these findings, the tribunal imposed a 12-month suspension with review, concluding that the conduct, while serious, was not fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.

Grounds of appeal

The General Medical Council (GMC) appealed under section 40A of the Medical Act 1983, arguing that the sanction was insufficient to protect the public.

The appeal faced an initial procedural hurdle: Dr Konathala challenged its validity on the basis that the GMC’s Form N161 had not been signed in the designated section. Mr Justice Mould rejected this argument, finding the appeal had been validly commenced as the form was signed elsewhere and sealed by the court within the statutory deadline.

Substantively, the GMC advanced four grounds of appeal. The court rejected the first two—relating to the tribunal’s assessment of impairment and its treatment of the doctor’s limited insight as a mitigating factor.

However, it upheld the third and fourth grounds. The judge found that the tribunal had erred in concluding that Dr Konathala had sufficient insight into his misconduct, given his continued denial and lack of meaningful reflection. It also failed to properly apply paragraph 109 of the Sanctions Guidance, which provides an “authoritative steer” toward erasure in cases involving serious sexual misconduct.

Court’s judgment

Mr Justice Mould ruled that the tribunal’s decision was “wrong in law” and did not adequately reflect the gravity of the misconduct. He concluded that erasure was the only proportionate sanction, citing the abuse of trust, violation of patient dignity, and the doctor’s limited insight. The judgment reinforces the principle that public confidence in the profession must be maintained through appropriate regulatory outcomes.

Let me know if you’d like a version tailored for a professional newsletter or a more informal summary for a public-facing website.

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.