Amitabh Kumar v General Medical Council

A tribunal reviewing a doctor’s continuing suspension must assess the evidence afresh. An earlier finding of insight does not determine the outcome of a later review.

Suspension is a means of remediation and is not an end in itself. After a lengthy period without remediation, deteriorating insight and clinical skills may justify erasure where continuation of suspension would not protect the public or maintain professional standards and confidence.

A tribunal may proceed in a practitioner’s absence where the practitioner had notice and voluntarily chose not to attend. The presence of a legally qualified chair or medically qualified member does not, without more, establish apparent bias or predetermination.

Dr Amitabh Kumar challenged a Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal decision dated 1 April 2025 erasing his name from the medical register. He had been suspended since 2015 following a conviction for sexual assault and had undergone successive reviews, including reviews on the papers.

He challenged the decision to hold an oral review, the Tribunal’s assessment of his insight, the proportionality of erasure, the treatment of his mental-health evidence, the Tribunal’s composition, and its decision to proceed in his absence at the resumed sanction hearing.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Assistant Registrar’s decision that the matter should be considered at a hearing, rather than on the papers, concerned only the form of the proceedings. It was irrelevant to the Tribunal’s decisions on impairment and sanction. The decision was plainly justified after five years without an oral review and did not disclose bias or predetermination.
2. Under Rule 22 of the Fitness to Practise Rules, a review hearing is an evidentiary hearing requiring the Tribunal to consider the current evidence afresh. A previous finding of exceptional insight did not bind the 2025 Tribunal. The Tribunal was entitled, and effectively required, to assess the claimant’s later statements and conclude that his insight had deteriorated.
3. Erasure was neither disproportionate nor inconsistent with the GMC Sanctions Guidance. Suspension is intended to facilitate remediation and eventual return to practice. It should not be prolonged indefinitely where there has been almost ten years of suspension, no meaningful remediation, deteriorating clinical skills and no realistic prospect of safe return.
4. The Tribunal properly applied the statutory objectives in section 1(1A) of the Medical Act 1983: protecting public health and safety, maintaining public confidence, and maintaining proper professional standards. Erasure was permissible even without a finding of future patient harm.
5. Under Rule 34, the Tribunal was entitled to refuse evidence from the Assistant Registrar because it was not fair or relevant to the issues before it. Under Rule 31, it was entitled to proceed in the claimant’s absence because he had notice and had voluntarily chosen not to attend after providing written representations.
6. The Tribunal’s composition did not create apparent bias. The proper standard was that of the informed and fair-minded observer. Nor did the Tribunal’s decision to proceed in the claimant’s absence establish predetermination.

1. Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal: on 1 April 2025, determined that Dr Kumar’s name should be erased from the medical register.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s decision.