AC-2025-MAN-000198 - [2025] EWHC 3017 (Admin)

The 2025 review process

The matter of Dr Kumar’s suspension then came for consideration at the end 2024. On 5 November 2024 the GMC wrote to Dr Kumar informing him that a review hearing would take place on 28 February 2025. The letter requested Dr Kumar provide evidence on various matters, all concerning what he had done since the last review had taken place. The letter then referred to the possibility that the matter might be considered at an ROP, and asked for the information requested to be provided by 26 November 2024 so that a decision could be made on whether review on the papers was the appropriate course.

Dr Kumar responded, by email dated 18 November 2024, as follows:

“With reference to your letter of 05 November 2024, I submit the following.

That, I have recently undergone intensive therapy for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder during the past couple of months. However, as can sometimes be the case, this therapy has itself acted as a trigger further worsening my mental health. Consequently I am currently awaiting further counselling, which is unlikely to commence before another couple of months as intimated by my previous therapist.

In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, I submit that I am currently not in the right shape mentally to undertake any kind of clinical training, education and/or attachment and therefore, as a matter of priority, to concentrate on my overall health and wellbeing, I am herein proposing for my suspension to be further extended by another 12 months.

I humbly request that my proposal may kindly be accepted and my upcoming MPTS review may please be conducted on paper, thus sparing me additional stress at this difficult time.”

[sic]

No documents appear to have been provided by Dr Kumar with that email.

On 9 December 2024 the GMC replied as follows:

“Thanks, for your email. I’m sorry to hear that your mental health has been triggered.

An assistant registrar has considered your request for a review on papers. They have decided that as you have been suspended for consecutive periods since 2016 and haven’t been able to provide the necessary evidence that you have kept your skills up to date and that your return to unrestricted practice wouldn’t put patient safety at risk, that your case should be reviewed at an oral hearing, rather than on papers.”

The reasons for this decision were stated in an email dated 18 December 2024, sent by the GMC sent after Dr Kumar had asked that the Assistant Registrar’s reasons be given.

“Reasons for decision

Dr Kumar has been suspended for consecutive periods since 2016.

He has unable to provide the information set out by the AR in directing a further review of the case (evidence that he has kept his skills up to date and that his return to unrestricted practice won’t put patient safety at risk).

Whilst Dr Kumar has indicated a further period of suspension is preferable and has requested a review on the papers with this in mind, considering the matter at an oral hearing would enable us to keep alternative sanctions in mind, given the lack of progress or remediation to date.”

The review hearing commenced on 28 February 2025 and was listed for a day. Dr Kumar attended by video link (at his own request). At the beginning of the afternoon session the video connection failed and at that time the hearing was adjourned (see the decision to this effect at Annex B to the Tribunal’s decision). However, by the time the hearing had to be adjourned, the Tribunal had taken the opportunity to hear submissions on the fitness to practise issue and to consider a witness statement dated 27 February 2025 made by Dr Kumar for the review hearing. So far as concerns the former, Dr Kumar accepted that his fitness to practise remained impaired. So far as concerns the latter, the thrust of Dr Kumar’s evidence in the witness statement was that his conviction in 2014 had a been a wrongful conviction, based on evidence that was either false or had been manufactured. The statement also set out Dr Kumar’s views about the 2025 review hearing.

“I have experienced far too many lying PCs and KCs, in my over 10 years experience of first hand dealings with the Legal Justice system, to believe in the integrity and sanctity of the "Rule of Law" doctrine. In my evidence based opinion there is no "Rule of Law", only rule of lawyers, sitting on prosecution and/or persecution (as in my case), and defence and/or defeat (as in my case again) as also, sitting on Judgement. A lack of integrity among lawyers has come to the fore following the Post Office Public Inquiry …

Fast forward more than a decade, over to this Review Hearing and the same applies, as the prosecuting (persecuting, in my opinion) General Medical Council are happy to turn a blind eye to the wilful lack of sight displayed by their unnamed assistant registrar, who blatantly and wilfully turned a blind eye to the sensitive disclosure of my poor mental health and yet at the same time, have the audacity to question my insight.

Due process placed the unnamed GMC assistant registrar under a bounden duty to approach decision making impartially, with an open mind (and with open eyes, as a prerequisite to an open mind) taking into account all the facts before them and considering all lines of inquiry. Instead, this unnamed GMC AR replaced this duty of due diligence with undue negligence, by wilfully turning a blind eye to significant disclosure of my poor mental health, (coming from a doctor belonging to South Asian community about which numerous news articles have gone on to highlight the stigma associated with mental illnesses, within the community). In their excessive zeal to haul me before a Tribunal, this unnamed GMC AR has abused his authority and due process, to mete out cruel, inhumane, insensitive and degrading treatment under the guise of exercising their decision making powers..

This Review Hearing is founded on the unnamed GMC AR’s wilfully blind decision making. The fact of a Review Hearing panel founded on the AR’s wilfully blind decision making, claiming a lack of jurisdiction in challenging the AR’s wilfully blind decision making, renders the GMC AR completely unaccountable for their actions. What this means is that the unnamed GMC AR is above any law and a law unto themselves. As far as I understand there is no legal basis for the alleged immunity from scrutiny of this unnamed GMC AR's actions, who purportedly exercises their decision making powers in public interest. This very premise besides being legally untenable also renders this entire Review Hearing into an unjust, abuse of process, where those who enrich themselves (as in being financially remunerated for their attendance at this Review Hearing) on the basis of this GMC AR’s wilfully blind decision making are now sitting in Judgement on my future and yet claim to have no jurisdiction over this AR, against whose unlawful, cruel, inhumane and degrading actions I have no legal remedies or recourse, other than to endure these farcical proceedings, despite my poor mental health.

The prejudice and predetermination underlying this Review Hearing is further highlighted by its perhaps "all female and all White" composition (my inference is based on the names of the Review Hearing panelists and therefore not conclusive), designed to create a discriminatory and hostile environment during the said Hearing, to facilitate the predetermined outcome of my erasure. In my over 10 years experience of attending MPTS hearings, I cannot recall a single all female and all White panel, before. And with all due respect to my Black and/or Muslim colleagues, I cannot shy away from recording my perception and objection that, had I belonged to any of the said groupings, the MPTS and/or GMC would have thought a hundred times before constituting a sanitised panel such as this one, where not a single Panelist is male or non- White, just to preempt any potential allegations of discrimination or racism. As it is, I am neither Black nor Muslim and hence, the softest of targets to be targeted by this sanitised panel.

Again, apart from this Review Hearing lacking any semblance of legal independence due to the absence of an independent legal advisor, there is also a self-evident and clear conflict of interest with the General Medical Council, as the actions of one of the panelist designated as Registrant, are under the direct control and scrutiny of the General Medical Council, the prosecuting party.

Essentially, the bottom line as I see it is that any action following the wilfully blind decision making of the unnamed GMC AR is prejudiced, farcical and legally untenable and regardless of the opinion of those who stand to gain from the perpetuation of these prejudiced and legally untenable proceedings, it is my duty to point out the extremely prejudiced, biased and legally untenable nature of these proceedings, especially given the unusually sanitised all female and all White composition of the Review Hearing panel, with all due respect for the panelists. The reason I am participating in these prejudiced and legally untenable proceedings is to not provide the panel with any excuse of my non compliance/non-engagement and non participation, whilst reiterating that my participation in these proceedings is without prejudice to my Legal Rights and/or any Legal Remedies available to me.”

[sic]

The Tribunal’s decision on the fitness to practise issue (i.e. whether Dr Kumar’s fitness to practise continued to be impaired), was as follows:

“31.

The Tribunal bore in mind the tone and content of the witness statement provided by Dr Kumar dated 27 February 2025, in which his opening words were ‘this farce began…’, and in which he described his conviction as a “wrongful arrest” and that it was a “perversion of course of justice”. He also criticised the victim of his sexual assault, as well as the Police, GMC and MPTS within this statement. The Tribunal was concerned that Dr Kumar’s witness statement was indictive that his insight was deteriorating, instead of developing. Indeed, the Tribunal considered that Dr Kumar had little understanding of the gravity of the offence and the impact it had on the victim and the wider medical profession. The Tribunal considered that Dr Kumar does not have sufficient insight into the relevant matters.

32.

The Tribunal considered the matter, prosecuted by Mersey Rail, for which a Statutory Declaration was subsequently made. It acknowledged that that this is not evidence of any further conviction and therefore it placed no weight on it.

33.

The Tribunal also took into account that there was very limited evidence before it to demonstrate that Dr Kumar has taken any steps to remediate or reflect on his misconduct. There is also limited information before it and no documentary evidence to demonstrate that Dr Kumar has kept his clinical skills and knowledge up to date.

34.

This Tribunal has therefore determined that Dr Kumar’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct.”

The hearing resumed on 1 April 2025 when the Tribunal considered the question of sanction. Dr Kumar did not attend the hearing on 1 April 2025. He had been notified of the date of the resumed hearing and had been sent a video link so that he could, once again, attend the hearing remotely. Early in the morning on 1 April 2025 Dr Kumar sent an email to the Tribunal saying that he would not be attending the hearing. He did, however, (with that email) provide a further witness statement. In that witness statement Dr Kumar said that he had decided not to attend the resumed hearing because of the “hostile and demeaning” conduct of counsel who had appeared for the GMC during the first part of the hearing on 28 February 2025.

The Tribunal accepted the witness statement sent on 1 April 2025 as further evidence from Dr Kumar and considered it accordingly. The statement referred again to the 2014 conviction. Dr Kumar said that the evidence provided by the complainant at that time did not support the complaint made; he said the police falsified the date of his interview to make it appear that he had been interviewed after the complaint and other witnesses when in fact he had been interviewed first; he asserted that the police who had conducted the investigation had perverted the course of justice and had discriminated against him on grounds of his race. Dr Kumar denied having committed the offence to which he had pleaded guilty.

In this statement, Dr Kumar was also critical of the decision to consider the review of the suspension at a hearing rather than by an ROP. Dr Kumar stated the decision to proceed at a hearing was wrong and had been made negligently. He was also critical of the Tribunal.

“11.

Unfortunately, I no longer have any reason to believe the integrity of this highly sanitised, discriminatory and prejudiced Tribunal panel whose sole purpose appears to be to reach a predetermined outcome, under a predetermined agenda. As it is, the fact is that this Panel and all of the other MPTS Tribunal hearings are financed by the GMC and have the conflicting presence of a GMC registrant within the panel, who remains under the regulatory control of the General Medical Council, potentially contaminating its purported independence even further.

12.

The fact that the Tribunal resorted to cherry picking from my scanty evidence, as is self-evident from the attached transcript, is clear evidence of prejudice and a closed mind-set on the Tribunal’s part, working on confirmation bias to find evidence which confirms its biases and suits its predetermined agenda of reaching a pre-determined conclusion and/or outcome.”

The statement also addressed the issue of his insight into his misconduct.

The Tribunal’s conclusion on sanction was explained in detail from paragraph 49 of its decision. The Tribunal identified three aggravating considerations.

“51.

The Tribunal consider the following to be aggravating features of Dr Kumar’s case:

•

Dr Kumar’s persistent lack of insight which has deteriorated over time;

•

The significant passage of time Dr Kumar has had to develop insight and remediate his misconduct;

•

The deterioration of Dr Kumar’s clinical skills during the 10-year period he has been suspended and the 15 years that he not practised in a clinical role.”

The Tribunal then considered whether the health issues Dr Kumar had referred to in his evidence, could be mitigating, but concluded that little weight should attach to this because Dr Kumar had not provided medical evidence to support this contention.

Next, the Tribunal considered the range of sanctions open to it, starting with the least severe course available. In this part of its decision the Tribunal considered whether Dr Kumar’s suspension should continue. It decided against that course.

“62.

The Tribunal considered that Dr Kumar has not even attempted to maintain clinical knowledge through online CPD or courses and has not acted upon any of the recommendations made by previous Tribunals for example to contact his local Deanery to seek a clinical attachment. The Tribunal has noted that there has been sufficient time since the ending of the Sex Offenders Registration notification and ceasing of covid restrictions to enable Dr Kumar to engage with these recommendations.

63.

The Tribunal considered that when taking into account the deterioration of Dr Kumar’s clinical skills and knowledge and his persistent lack of insight and failure to remediate the concerns surrounding his practice, all three limbs of the overarching objective were engaged in this case.

64.

The Tribunal was of the view that imposing a further sanction of suspension on Dr Kumar’s registration is unlikely to produce a different outcome at this stage of the ongoing regulatory proceedings particularly given that the original suspension was imposed ten years ago, with little evidence of positive change throughout that lengthy period of time.

65.

The Tribunal considered that Dr Kumar has a duty to attempt to remediate his misconduct and adhere to the principles set out in GMP. The Tribunal determined that he has continuously failed to do so and accordingly, it cannot be satisfied that Dr Kumar would avail of a further period of suspension to remediate and become safe to look after patients.

66.

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that a period of suspension would not be appropriate to sufficiently maintain and uphold proper professional standards and protect the public confidence in the profession.”

The Tribunal’s conclusion was that Dr Kumar should be erased from the Register. The Tribunal referred to the material parts of the GMC’s sanctions guidance, and then continued as follows:

“69.

The Tribunal considered that Dr Kumar has had many years to address the concerns regarding his practice and has persistently failed to do so.

70.

The Tribunal took the view that Dr Kumar has now disengaged with the hearing process and is therefore unlikely to endeavour to remediate the concerns regarding his practice.

71.

In all the circumstances, the Tribunal determined that no lesser sanction than erasure would adequately promote and maintain public confidence in the medical profession and promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of that profession.

72.

Therefore, the Tribunal determined to erase Dr Kumar’s name from the Medical Register.”