Demanya v The General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 247 (Admin)

The court found that Dr Demanya had

• failed to diagnose sepsis in a patient,
• falsified medical records by retrospectively adding antibiotic prescriptions and catheterisation notes, and
• given false testimony under oath to the coroner.

The court upheld the Tribunal’s decision to erase Dr Demanya’s name from the medical register. It held that this was due to his sustained dishonesty and misconduct, which was considered fundamentally incompatible with continued registration as a doctor.

Material Facts

• Dr Demanya failed to diagnose sepsis in a 75-year-old female patient admitted to the Royal Glamorgan Hospital and acted dishonestly by falsifying medical records.
• Dr Demanya retrospectively added entries for antibiotic prescriptions and catheterisation to the patient’s medical records.
• He crossed out the antibiotic prescriptions to cover up his misconduct.
• At the inquest into the patient’s death, Dr Demanya gave false testimony under oath, maintaining that antibiotics and catheterisation were part of his original treatment plan.
• The Medical Practitioners Tribunal found Dr Demanya guilty of misconduct and ordered the erasure of his name from the medical register.
• Dr Demanya appealed the Tribunal’s decision, arguing that the findings were wrong and that the sanction was disproportionate.

The Law

• Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
• Companies Act 2006
• Salomon v Salomon [1897] AC 22
• The principle of corporate personality
• Medical Act 1983
• General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004
• Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 52
• Precedents: R (on the application of Dutta) v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin), Sastry v GMC [2021] EWCA Civ 623, Ghosh v GMC [2001] UKPC 29
  Submissions of the Parties
• The appellant argued that the Tribunal’s findings were wrong and should be quashed, the legal principles applied were incorrect, and that the sanction of erasure was disproportionate. He contended that the Tribunal failed to properly account for the evidence and witness credibility.
• The respondent (GMC) argued that the Tribunal’s findings were correct, based on a holistic assessment of the evidence, and that the serious nature of Dr Demanya’s misconduct justified the sanction of erasure to maintain public confidence in the medical profession and uphold professional standards.

Court Rationale

The court found that the Tribunal had conducted a thorough and holistic analysis of the evidence. It was found that the court had considered witness credibility in the context of contemporaneous documentation and expert evidence. It also held that the Tribunal’s findings of serious and sustained dishonesty by Dr Demanya were justified. Lastly, the court also found that the Tribunal’s decision to erase Dr Demanya’s name from the medical register was appropriate and necessary.  The rationale being to maintain public confidence in the medical profession and uphold professional standards.

The Decision

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal’s decision to erase Dr Demanya’s name from the medical register due to his sustained dishonesty and misconduct.