Kumar v General Medical Council: High Court upholds erasure following decade-long suspension

The High Court has dismissed Dr Amitabh Kumar's appeal against the Medical Practitioners' Tribunal's decision to erase his name from the medical register, concluding that a decade of suspension without meaningful remediation justified the severe sanction.

Dr Kumar was convicted in August 2014 of sexual assault on a 15-year-old girl, following a guilty plea. The offence occurred on a bus in April 2014. He received a community punishment and was placed on the Sex Offenders Register for five years. In July 2015, the GMC's Fitness to Practise Panel found his fitness to practise impaired both by the conviction and his failure to report it, imposing a 12-month suspension.

The suspension continued through multiple reviews until April 2025—initially through hearings, then from 2020 onwards through Reviews on the Papers (ROP). Throughout this period, Dr Kumar failed to demonstrate efforts to maintain clinical skills or engage with recommendations from previous tribunals.

The 2025 review hearing

When the GMC determined that the 2024 review should proceed as an oral hearing rather than an ROP, Dr Kumar objected, citing recent mental health difficulties. The tribunal proceeded, with Dr Kumar attending the first day via video link on 28 February 2025. Technical difficulties adjourned the hearing, which resumed on 1 April 2025 without Dr Kumar, who chose not to attend citing concerns about counsel's conduct.

Significantly, Dr Kumar's witness statements revealed a troubling shift in position. Whilst a 2017 tribunal had found he demonstrated "exceptional insight", his 2025 evidence described his conviction as a "wrongful arrest" and "perversion of the course of justice". He criticised the victim, police, and regulatory bodies, raising concerns about deteriorating rather than developing insight.

The tribunal's decision

The tribunal identified three aggravating factors: persistent lack of insight that had deteriorated over time; the significant period available to develop insight and remediate; and the deterioration of clinical skills during ten years of suspension and fifteen years without clinical practice.

The tribunal concluded that further suspension would be futile. Dr Kumar had taken no steps to maintain clinical knowledge through CPD or courses, even after leaving the Sex Offenders Register. The tribunal found all three overarching objectives of medical regulation were engaged and that no sanction less than erasure would adequately protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession.

Grounds of appeal and High Court analysis

Mr Justice Swift systematically rejected Dr Kumar's five grounds of appeal. The court found no error in the tribunal's refusal to hear evidence from the Assistant Registrar who decided a hearing was necessary, as those reasons were irrelevant to fitness to practise and sanction.

The court rejected the argument that the tribunal wrongly departed from the 2017 finding of "exceptional insight", noting each review must consider current evidence. The 2025 conclusion was based on Dr Kumar's own statements and was entirely justified.

The proportionality challenge failed. The court emphasised that after ten years of suspension without remediation or maintenance of clinical skills, continuing suspension would contradict regulatory objectives. The tribunal's reasoning was consistent with GMC Sanctions Guidance and correct.

Claims of bias, procedural unfairness, and Article 3 violations were dismissed. The tribunal properly exercised its discretion to proceed in Dr Kumar's absence on 1 April 2025, having considered his voluntary decision not to attend.

The judgement reinforces that regulatory sanctions must ultimately serve public protection and professional standards, not provide indefinite opportunities for remediation where none materialises.

Copyright & permissions