AC-2023-LON-002171 - [2024] EWHC 132 (Admin)

Firstly, Mr Hodivala submitted that the Committee proceeded on an erroneous factual basis, namely that there were three further occasions where the Appellant had provided private periodontal treatment to Patient 5 (para 80 above). The GDC had in fact withdrawn charges in relation to 14 November 2014 and 24 July 2015 and there was no allegation in relation to 12 February 2016. Secondly, he said that the PCC’s reasoning showed that it reversed the burden of proof in relation to this charge in stating that: “... that patient should have been offered the available treatment on the NHS. The Committee considers that there is no satisfactory evidence that you did this”. Thirdly, he contended that there was no evidence to rebut Dr Imani’s case that the patient had wanted to have the treatment privately on this occasion; there was no evidence called from the patient and she had provided him with treatment on the NHS on other occasions.