Siddiqui v General Medical Council [2013] All ER (D) 88 (Aug)

Dr Siddiqui was a GP. A patient complained about her treatment and raised an apparent misdiagnosis. In the course of the investigation of the complaint, the doctor altered the notes and records to state that she had carried out certain tests and examinations when she hadn’t.

The matter came before a Fitness to Practise Panel of the GMC and in the proceedings the doctor admitted that she had provided a poor standard of care. She suggested that she had not been aware of the deteriorating condition of the patient until the complaint was raised.

It was found by the Panel that her conduct in relation to the alteration of the notes and also her stance in the Fitness to Practise proceedings regarding knowledge of the patient’s condition amounted to dishonesty. In this regard it was established that her fitness to practise was impaired, ie not in relation to her treatment and apparent misdiagnosis of the patient.

The sanction imposed was one of a 6 month suspension.

The doctor argued that this was a disproportionate penalty bearing in mind a long career and an otherwise unblemished record.

The appeal court did not find that the Panel had erred. They had fully and properly considered all material before them and given due regard to the relevant factors in reaching their decision. They had properly weighed the factor of damage to the reputation to the profession by dishonesty on the part of a member of the profession. The sanction was correct.