Qureshi v General Medical Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Males |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 3369 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 30 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 1HQ/13/0320 |
[2013] EWHC 3369 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Males
Case No: 1HQ/13/0320
Mr S Butler (instructed by BSG Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr D Pievsky (instructed by GMC Legal) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Approved Judgment
The Applicant, Dr Shabir Qureshi, has had a long and distinguished career in medicine. He is a general practitioner and an ENT surgeon and was self-employed prior to his suspension. From 2002 until 2010 he was a medical panel member for the General Medical Council on its Fitness to Practice Committee and he has lectured and taught, at any rate up to the year 2011.
However, in the circumstances which I shall describe, an interim suspension order has been made suspending his registration for a period of 18 months from 14 th August 2012. That suspension was continued when it was reviewed by an Interim Orders Panel on 17 th January 2013. Dr Qureshi now applies to this Court under s.41A(10) of the Medical Act 1983, seeking the termination of the Panel's decision of 17 th January.
The circumstances in which the suspension order came to be made were as follows. In July 2012 the GMC received two separate complaints about Dr Qureshi from members of the public who had been his patients. The first complaint from Miss S M was dated 13 th July 2012. Miss S M explained that she went to see Dr Qureshi on that day with her husband. She was 31 weeks pregnant and had recently been in hospital. She wanted to be referred to a skin specialist for examination of a condition on her face, but Dr Qureshi told her that he wanted to perform the procedure himself with local anaesthetic. When she disagreed with that suggestion Dr Qureshi allegedly said that he was insulted by that. He referred, she said, to getting the money for himself rather than referring her on. He threatened to remove her from his list, lost his temper and, she said, called her husband a bastard. He also, she said, attempted to charge at her husband. He put his hands on her arms and attempted to shove her out of the way.
Miss S M reported this incident to the police. When the police arrived Dr Qureshi denied the allegation and accused Miss S M's husband of being abusive to him. There is a police report of this incident in which they describe very briefly the nature of the complaint made as I have referred to it, and they say that the only witness was a receptionist at the practice, who said that both parties were shouting and aggressive. The officers advised that, given that there were allegations in both directions, Miss S M should complain through the complaints procedure of the GMC. Subsequently Miss S M stated that she did not wish the police to take the matter any further as she was pregnant and did not want any stress. Dr Qureshi also did not want any police action to be taken. So it looks as if, so far as the police are concerned, that was an end of the matter.
In an account given to a Dr Bradley, to whom I shall refer later, in October 2012, Dr Qureshi described that incident in these terms. He said that he was communicating with Miss S M's partner in Urdu. Dr Qureshi denied losing his temper, but pointed out to the young man that he was old enough to be his father and also said, that he should be legally married, otherwise his child would be a bastard. He said that that word was used in the English language, although the rest of the conversation was in Urdu and it may be that was what Miss S M had picked up on.
The account goes on to say that Dr Qureshi recognises that this young man was not his patient. He felt that he had a duty to point out to him that he might be doing wrong within his cultural standards. He says that the young woman picked up the word "bastard" and thought it was being applied to her partner. It is surprising in the circumstances, even on Dr Qureshi's account, that he considered this an appropriate conversation to have had.
The second complaint was made on 30 th July 2012, so just a few weeks later, and was from another patient, Miss S H, who had brought her 14 year old daughter to see Dr Qureshi earlier that day. The daughter had had a chesty cough for some weeks and Miss S H wanted some cream for her eczema and a repeat prescription for inhalers to treat her asthma. There was a discussion about a prescription that had been issued on 25 th July. Miss S H alleged that Dr Qureshi refused to give her any inhalers, even though the family was about to go on holiday and insulted her by asking who was the doctor, him or her, and shouted at her to get out of the room. She alleged that she had returned later on to the surgery with her partner to try and resolve the issues and that having invited her and her partner into his consulting room, Dr Qureshi then shouted at the top of his voice, swung a large roll of paper at them and punched Miss S H's partner in the face.
Again the police were called and there is a police report of this incident. Dr Qureshi claimed that it was the complainant who was the aggressor and that he was acting in his own defence and his version of events was corroborated by the practice nurse at the surgery. The police report continues that the complainant would not substantiate the allegation or provide a written statement. Dr Qureshi was not arrested or subject to any judicial proceedings and the matter is complete.
When he saw Dr Bradley, Dr Qureshi told him that it was he, Dr Qureshi, who had been assaulted. He fell to the floor when assaulted by Miss S H's partner and was briefly unconscious. He said that he had been punched and kicked and suffered considerable bruising. In fact on 30 th July it appears that Dr Qureshi did go to see his GP, Dr Dodhy, who photographed bruises on his body, although Dr Dodhy subsequently reported that by 1 st October 2012 Dr Qureshi had made a complete recovery from these injuries. I was told that Dr Qureshi's understanding is that the allegations in relation to this second incident, which were made to the GMC, have been formally withdrawn, but Mr Pievsky, counsel for the GMC, tells me that that is not so.
The complaints were referred to an IOP panel hearing, which took place on 14 th August 2012. Dr Qureshi did not attend, apparently because he was in hospital or otherwise unwell rather than because he did not wish to attend. The panel decided to suspend Dr Qureshi's registration for 18 months on the ground that there may be impairment of his fitness to practice, which posed a real risk to members of the public and which may adversely affect the public interest. Dr Qureshi was notified of that decision, but did not seek to challenge it by way of an application to the Court or otherwise.
This decision was firmly based on the two incidents which had given rise to complaints. There is no reference in the submissions made to the Panel or in its own decision of any concerns about Dr Qureshi's own health or mental condition. It might have been expected that formal charges would follow from the GMC based on these two complaints, which would then be referred to a Fitness to Practice Panel, but that did not happen. In fact even now there have been no such charges. I find that somewhat surprising if these are allegations which are going to be pursued.
What did happen was that there were two developments. The first was a further complaint by Miss S M, the first complainant, that Dr Qureshi had been attempting to deter her from maintaining the complaint. In fact that appears to have been a complaint that she made even before the first Panel hearing where she referred to Dr Qureshi going to see a consultant in her husband's department at work and giving what she described as a fabricated version of the events. She said that the consultant to whom he spoke had a close relationship with Miss S M's husband and then spoke to him about it. She said that Dr Qureshi had gone on to question whether or not she and her husband were married, because she had kept her maiden name. She said they were married Islamically, but not under English law and that Dr Qureshi would know the kind of impact that saying that they were unmarried would have on her and her husband's reputation in their community. She objected to him spreading complaints or comments about this. She complained that she was about to have a baby, it was a stressful time and he was trying, unprofessionally, to bully her into dropping the complaint. If that is true, and Dr Qureshi on the evidence before me has neither confirmed nor denied it, it would appear to call his judgment and professionalism into question.
The second development was a further referral to the GMC dated 17 th October 2012 from Dr Alison Conway, a consultant psychiatrist at the Woodland Centre at Hillingdon Hospital. She sets out a disturbing picture of Dr Qureshi's health over a period of some years. She begins by saying:
"I would like to refer this doctor to the GMC in relation to his health. I understand he is currently suspended from the Medical Register but I was advised to send in information of my concerns as this may help with the enquiry that is underway."
She then sets out a chronology of events extending from September 2008 up to the present time, together with supporting documents to flesh out the items in her chronology.
It begins in September 2008 with Dr Qureshi being referred to adult psychiatry for possible post-traumatic stress disorder after two road accidents. Among...
To continue reading
Request your trial