Ashish Dutta v General Medical Council

An appeal from a Medical Practitioners Tribunal is a rehearing, but intervention remains governed by the statutory appellate test. The court must respect the tribunal’s advantages in assessing witnesses and specialist professional matters, while intervening where findings are unsupported, inadequately reasoned or unjust because of serious irregularity.

Delay does not establish unfairness without specific prejudice, particularly where the tribunal has directed itself on fading memories. Findings of dishonesty require careful assessment of evidence favourable as well as adverse to the practitioner. Where a tribunal selectively relies on evidence, fails to address material contrary evidence, or applies an unclear regulatory concept without resolving the practitioner’s state of mind, its findings may be quashed.

Dr Ashish Dutta appealed under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 against findings and the erasure of his name from the medical register following proceedings before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal. The appeal challenged delay, the inclusion of allegedly prejudicial material, findings concerning statements made to the CQC, breaches of CQC arrangements and GMC interim-order conditions, and the sanction.

He also applied under section 38(8) of the Act to terminate an immediate suspension order. That application became academic because the appeal was heard. The central issues were whether the tribunal’s findings were wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity and, if so, what matters should be remitted.

1. Appellate jurisdiction. The appeal under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 was by way of rehearing. Under CPR PD52D and CPR 52.21, the court could substitute its own decision, but should accord appropriate respect to the tribunal’s specialist judgment and its advantage in hearing witnesses. Findings of fact and evaluative conclusions should be disturbed only on recognised appellate grounds.
2. Delay and prejudicial material. The delay did not make the hearing unfair. Dr Dutta identified no specific lost evidence or witness prejudice, and the legally qualified chair gave an adequate direction concerning the effect of fading or confused memories. The agreed bundle and the absence of any application before the tribunal for further redaction, exclusion or adjournment did not establish a serious procedural irregularity. The evidence concerning withdrawn clinical allegations could not properly be inferred to have influenced findings on unrelated allegations.
3. Allegation 8. The finding that Patient C had suffered a cardiac arrest was quashed. The tribunal relied selectively on evidence supporting circulatory collapse and did not address contrary heart-trace evidence, later descriptions of bradycardia, or the absence of evidence from the anaesthetist. Its reasoning was materially inadequate. The finding that Dr Dutta had dishonestly denied a cardiac arrest was also not open on the evidence, particularly given his reliance on the cardiac report and the anaesthetist’s later description of bradycardia.
4. Allegations 9 and 10. The findings that Dr Dutta gave misleading assurances about procedures at the Sunderland clinic and about BBL procedures were findings open to the tribunal on the evidence and were upheld.
5. Allegation 13. The tribunal was wrong to find that the COVID assurance had been breached. It expressly operated until a change in Government regulations. The tribunal’s findings concerning deliberate and dishonest breaches of the Dormancy Notice and interim-order conditions were also quashed because it failed properly to address evidence concerning the uncertain regulatory meaning of surgical procedures and Dr Dutta’s state of belief.
6. Disposition. The appeal was allowed in relation to allegations 8 and 13. The general grounds and the challenges to allegations 9, 10 and 14 failed. The relevant findings were quashed and the matter was remitted to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal for reconsideration of fitness to practise and sanction on the remaining findings.

High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal from the Medical Practitioners Tribunal was allowed in part. Findings on allegations 8 and 13 were quashed; findings on allegations 9, 10 and 14 remained. The matter was remitted for reconsideration of fitness to practise and sanction.