An orthopaedic surgeon operating in Guernsey has received a formal warning for giving incorrect information on an application form for indemnity insurance.
Dr Ranjan Vhadra began working at the Medical Specialist Group in 2004. Six years later the General Medical Council investigated ‘clinical concerns’ raised about Dr Vhadra’s work, and subsequently he received a final warning from the MSG for failing to complete an appraisal.
The MSG referred Dr Vhadra to its review panel in 2013 and in 2014 he was subject to a disciplinary procedure for failing to meet appraisal deadlines.
These incidents culminated in Dr Vhadra being put under monthly monitoring and the Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland withdrawing his indemnity insurance.
“[Dr Vhadra’s] history demonstrated…the future risk of claims and other incidents based on that record, is likely to be higher than we can reasonably accept,” said the insurer.
Pictured: Dr Vahdra was a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon at the MSG when the incident occurred.
Dr Vhadra was suspended from the MSG and a further investigation into his clinical practice was launched. He no longer works for the MSG and has since set up his own health practice.
To continue work in Guernsey, Dr Vhadra needed to be insured and sought cover through Paragon and further indemnity cover through the Medical Defence Union.
He approached the Committee for Health and Social Care, to see if his insurance applications could be made through HSC. It was at this point that a senior Doctor in HSC raised concerns about the answers given in the application.
It was found that Dr Vhadra had answered ‘no’ to a series of questions in both applications - and a third application for the Medical Protection Society – when asked if there had been any breaks in his practice and whether he had been subject to a past investigation or disciplinary action.
Pictured: The MP Tribunal has published the questions Dr Vhadra answered falsely.
“This conduct does not meet the standards required of a doctor. It risks bringing the profession into disrepute and it must not be repeated,” continued the Chair of the Tribunal Service.
The Tribunal concluded that Dr Vhadra wasn’t acting dishonestly, but was acting inconsistently.
This ‘inconsistency’ could still have seen Dr Vhadra insured incorrectly and potentially invalidate future claims, putting the MSG and the public at risk.
“The Tribunal took into account the public interest and balanced this with the evidence produced by, and the interests of, Dr Vhadra,” continued the Tribunal Chair.
“Having conducted this exercise, the Tribunal determined that a warning would be appropriate and proportionate.”
Once your comment has been submitted, it won’t appear immediately. There is no need to submit it more than once. Comments are published at the discretion of Bailiwick Publishing, and will include your username.
There are no comments for this article.