The High Court has quashed a finding by the Medical Practitioners Tribunals Service (MPTS). The Court agreed with the Authority and the GMC that the doctor’s actions were sexually motivated and he had not treated his patient with dignity and posed a potential risk to the public. Dr Jagjivan had denied that his actions were sexually motivated and had also blamed the patient in his evidence, stating that it was the patient who had behaved inappropriately.
Though the MPTS had found Dr Jagjivan’s actions “deplorable”, it ruled that his actions were not sexually motivated and no further action would be taken and the doctor would not be issued with a warning. The Court quashed the MPTS' finding and substituted it with a finding that Dr Jagjivan’s actions were sexually motivated. The case has now been sent back to the MPTS so that it can consider the question of impairment and, if required, what kind of sanction is suitable and whether Dr Jagjivan should continue to practise as a doctor.
This is the first joint case to be heard since the GMC gained the right to appeal MPTS decisions. The Authority can join the GMC in these appeals, if we consider any MPTS findings do not protect the public sufficiently and we have a contribution to make to the hearing.
Read the judgment or find out more about our work reviewing the regulators’ final fitness to practise cases on our website at: www.professionalstandards.org.uk/protecting-the-public
Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care
Christine Braithwaite, Director Standards and Policy
Reception: 020 7389 8030
Notes to the Editor
- The GMC and the Authority appealed the MPTS decision under section 40A of the Medical Act 1983. Since December 2015, this gives the GMC the right to refer MPTS decisions to the relevant court if it considers that a decision was insufficient to protect the public and the Authority can become a party to these referrals if we wish. This is similar to our own power to appeal the regulators’ final fitness to practise decisions under Section 29 of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 if we consider that they are insufficient to protect the public. The Authority has developed a protocol with the GMC to ensure that we work proportionately and in the public interest on these cases.
- The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care oversees nine statutory bodies that regulate health and social care professionals in the UK.
- We assess their performance and report to Parliament. We also conduct audits and investigations and can appeal fitness to practise cases to the courts if we consider that sanctions are insufficient to protect the public and it is in the public interest.
- The Standards of Good Regulation are designed to ensure that the regulators are protecting the public but also promoting confidence in health and care professionals and themselves. The Standards cover the regulators’ four core functions: setting and promoting guidance and standards for the profession; setting standards for and quality assuring the provision of education and training; maintaining a register of professionals; and taking action where a professional’s fitness to practise may be impaired.
- We also set standards for organisations holding voluntary registers for health and social care occupations and accredit those that meet them.
- We share good practice and knowledge, conduct research and introduce new ideas to our sector. We monitor policy developments in the UK and internationally and provide advice on issues relating to professional standards in health and social care.
- We do this to promote the health, safety and wellbeing of users of health and social care services and the public. We are an independent body, accountable to the UK Parliament.
- Our values are at the heart of who we are and what we do. We are committed to being impartial, fair, accessible and consistent in the application of our values.
- More information about our work and the approach we take is available at www.professionalstandards.org.uk