Doctor's appeal dismissed over unsigned form

High Court dismisses doctor's appeal due to procedural error

The High Court recently dismissed an appeal by Dr Mahendra Nathadwarawala against a sanction imposed by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT), citing procedural errors. The case, heard by Deputy Judge Alan Bates, revolved around the appeal's validity due to an unsigned Appellant's Notice form.

Dr Nathadwarawala, representing himself, contested the MPT's decision to suspend his medical registration for six months following findings of misconduct and dishonesty. The General Medical Council (GMC), represented by Alexis Hearnden, raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing the appeal was not filed within the statutory 28-day period.

The appeal notice, submitted before the deadline, lacked a signature, rendering it invalid. The court's administrative staff notified Dr Nathadwarawala of the error after the appeal period had lapsed. Despite promptly submitting a signed form, the appeal was deemed out of time.

Deputy Judge Bates concluded that the unsigned form did not constitute a valid appeal under the Medical Act 1983, and the court lacked the power to extend the appeal deadline. This decision was based on the principles established in previous cases, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance.

The court also addressed the substantive merits of the appeal, noting that even if the appeal had been timely, the MPT's sanction was appropriate. The MPT had found that Dr Nathadwarawala's conduct, involving overpayments from a locum agency, was dishonest and warranted suspension.

Dr Nathadwarawala argued that the sanction was excessive, citing mitigating factors such as his long-standing medical career and recent repayment of the outstanding debt. However, the court upheld the MPT's decision, highlighting the significance of honesty in the medical profession.

This case underscores the critical nature of procedural accuracy in legal appeals and the high standards expected of medical professionals. The court's decision reinforces the notion that procedural errors, even minor ones, can have significant consequences.

Learn More

For more information on medical negligence, see BeCivil's guide to Medical Negligence.