The tribunal considered allegations of dishonest conduct against Dr Vhadra was a consultant orthopaedic surgeon at the MSG in dating back to 2017.
It found that he had provided inaccurate information while completing application forms for professional indemnity insurance with two insurers, after his insurance company declined to continue covering him because ‘history demonstrated... the future risk of claims and other incidents based on that record, is likely to be higher than we can reasonably accept’.
Within the application forms, the insurers had asked Dr Vhadra if his employer had raised any concerns against him or whether he had been the subject of investigation or a disciplinary process, if he had ever been suspended from a post, or had restrictions placed against his clinical practice.
Mr Vhadra had answered ‘no’, although in 2014, the MSG gave him a final written warning for failing to complete his 2013 appraisal which resulted in a disciplinary hearing which subsequently required him to submit to monthly monitoring of his practice.
When he made the MSG aware of his lack of insurance cover, he was suspended from practice and a MSG investigation regarding his clinical practice was started.
The tribunal determined that what Dr Vhadra had done was ‘unacceptable’.
It said: ‘The gravity of [Dr Vhadra’s] actions amounted to serious misconduct and that the misconduct had the potential to put patients at risk, fell below the expected standards of behaviour and undermined public confidence in the profession.’
It credited Dr Vhadra for providing positive evidence of mitigating factors, showing insight into his previous actions and undertaking remediation.
Partially redacted information in the judgment indicated that the tribunal accepted that Dr Vhadra was acting under a great deal of stress at the time and acknowledged that, subsequently, he had not experienced similar episodes and had established a thriving business.
The tribunal decided there was a low risk of Dr Vhadra repeating the offending conduct.
No case was proven on a third insurance application form completed by Dr Vhadra to another provider.
The tribunal also concluded that Dr Vhadra’s fitness to practice had not been impaired.
Having considered the public interest, balanced with the evidence produced by Dr Vhadra, the tribunal determined that a warning would be appropriate and proportionate to mark the seriousness of the departures from good medical practice, to be published on the General Medical Council’s website.