Privy Council Appeal No. 73 of 2000

Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati	Appellant
	v.
The General Medical Council	Respondent

	FROM

	THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
OF THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
	---------------

	JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL
	COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL,
	Delivered the 5th April 2001
	------------------

	Present at the hearing:-
			Lord Hoffmann
			Lord Cooke of Thorndon
			Sir Philip Otton
		  	[Delivered by Lord Hoffmann]
	------------------

1. 	This is an appeal by Dr Ramesh Kumar Gulati against the decision of the Professional Conduct Committee of the The General Medical Council to erase his name from the Register. Dr Gulati had pleaded guilty to two charges both of whichinvolved the production of false medical reports which were to be used for the purposes of making bogus accident claims against insurance companies.  The matter came to the attention of the General Medical Council as a result of an investigative television programme which was inquiring into insurance fraud in the Preston area.  In the course of the preparation of the programme two young ladies passed themselves off as persons who wished falsely to claim that they had been injured in a motor accident and went to a firm of solicitors in Preston called Bhailock Fielding who apparently were also involved in a commercial organisation  processing such claims.  Through Bhailock Fielding they were sent for examination to Dr Gulati and it appears that after an extremely cursory examination he provided them with the necessary medical reports detailing injuries which in fact they had never suffered and which were intended to be used to make a claim against the insurance company.

2. 	These facts were not denied and the Professional Conduct Committee said that Dr Gulati’s behaviour undermined the trust which the public placed in the medical profession.  It was a dishonest abuse of his position as a doctor and therefore in the public interest it was appropriate that his name should be erased from the Register.

3. 	The appeal is based upon four grounds.  The first is that the Committee did not attach sufficient weight to the fact that  Dr Gulati was not knowingly involved in an insurance fraud.  Their Lordships do not find any such finding in the judgment of the Professional Conduct Committee.  On the contrary it seems to be implicit in their findings that Dr Gulati must have known why he was producing these reports.  He then goes on to say that he stood to make no financial gain other than to receive a modest fee for each report of £65.  Against that, however, it must be said that on his own admission Dr Gulati was producing a large number of these reports with a fairly rapid turnover and it is difficult to believe that he would have engaged himself in this activity except for the money.

4. 	The second ground is that the Committee failed to attach sufficient weight to Dr Gulati’s long, devoted and unblemished record of service to his patients and the National Health Service and the universally high regard in which he is held by his Professional colleagues, staff and patients.  The background has since been supplemented by additional testimonials from his patients and others.  It appears, however, that the Committee accepted that he was held in high respect by his professional colleagues and patients but nevertheless thought that the order which they made was required in the public interest.

5. 	Thirdly, it is said that the Committee were not invited to and did not take into account the shame and humiliation which would arise to Dr Gulati’s wife and children as a result of the erasure of his name from the Register.  It does not appear that this matter was specifically drawn to the attention of the Committee and their Lordships have  been offered no reason as to why it was not, but in any event it must inevitably have been known to the Committee that the order that they made was bound to have unpleasant consequences for Dr Gulati’s wife and family.

6. 	Finally it is said that the Committee were not invited to and did not take into account the financial implications for Dr Gulati and his wife, and further details of the financial position of himself and his wife, who is also a medical practitioner and who practises in partnership with him on the same premises, have been put before the Board.  Again it is difficult to accept that had these matters been put before the Committee they would have regarded them as making any difference to the order which they saw fit to make.  Their order appears to their Lordships to be entirely within the  proper discretion of the Committee and their Lordships feel unable to intervene. They are extremely grateful to counsel on both sides for their written and oral submissions this morning and they will humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.