Dr Prashant JINDAL's medical expert
Sasha Rodoy made this Freedom of Information request to General Medical Council Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.
Emails from GMC Investigation Officer Jonathan Hall to me.
• 3 April 2019: "Unfortunately the signing of the consent form itself does not raise sufficient patient safety concerns that Dr Jindal poses himself for an Interim Order to be considered at this point. As I have advised Greg and Catherine however this is a position we keep under constant review based on what further evidence we collect. For example once the expert report is received it may be that serious concerns are raised which would require us to reconsider this position at that point.
I appreciate that it is concerning that a ‘non-medically qualified’ person could be operating on members of the public but the crucial consideration is the individual actions of Dr Jindal himself and his involvement which our investigation it still attempting to establish. Specific instances of a ‘non-medically qualified’ person carrying out procedures they are not qualified to carry out is more of a matter for the CQC rather than ourselves because we do not have the powers to investigate that individual on account of them not being registered with the GMC.”
• 2 August 2019: 'Because of the difficulties experienced with finding an appropriate expert with experience of refractive eye surgery, the current expert instructed does not have specific experience of refractive eye surgery. We will however still seek to instruct another expert with experience of refractive eye surgery to comment solely on the consent form. We are hopeful that it will be much easier to find and instruct an expert to comment on such a narrow scope as the consent form because many experts had previously advised that they would not be able to take on reports looking into so many patients.
• 11 Sept 2019: 'As a result we have also sought to instruct a refractive eye surgery expert to be able to provide a further report on the clinical aspects of the case. Thankfully one has advised that they will be able to help albeit not for some weeks yet due to work commitments. We will obviously need to wait until the finalised reports have been received but it is anticipated that as they will cover different aspects then they will both exist on the case together, rather than one report superseding the other.’
• 27 April 2020: 'As discussed I can confirm that further to the email below that I sent on 2 August 2019, that we did not subsequently obtain another expert’s opinion specifically on the consent form itself. Once we received all of the expert reports from our initial expert, we sought advice from one of our medically qualified Case Examiners. They confirmed that the expert reports we already had (all from the same expert) were sufficient for our purposes.’
'As a result we have also sought to instruct a refractive eye surgery expert to be able to provide a further report on the clinical aspects of the case.’
'Once we received all of the expert reports from our initial expert, we sought advice from one of our medically qualified Case Examiners. They confirmed that the expert reports we already had (all from the same expert) were sufficient for our purposes.’
Q's
1. After extensive consideration, and specifically asking the RCOphth if a non medically qualified person was allowed to perform laser eye surgery ops (GMC didn't know!), Case Examiners referred Dr Jindal to a FtP hearing.
FIVE Accuvision patients provided their consent forms to the GMC, all stating that a 'non medically qualified’ person might [illegally] operate. Regardless of whoever operated, and outwith the purview of the CQC, Dr Jindal signed four of these, confirming his agreement to illegal activities.
Why then, as his regulator, did the GMC not subsequently consider Dr Jindal subject to an Interim Order?
2. Why was it so difficult to find an 'appropriate expert with experience of refractive eye surgery’?
3. How many refractive surgeons are on the GMC list of experts?
4. In the same way that I would not expect the GMC to instruct a gynaecologist to report on a case against a heart surgeon, why did the GMC consider it appropriate in this case to instruct an expert without 'specific experience of refractive eye surgery’?
5. In 2019, there were only TWO patients to be considered, definitely not ’so many’. Did the GMC tell the experts they approached that there were only TWO?
(NB: I submitted requests under Rule 12 for two other patients in 2020, which lead to a delay in the hearing listing.)
6. Did your 'medically qualified Case Examiner’ have experience in refractive surgery?
7. If no, what is their medical background?
8. At the May 2022 FtP hearing, your instructed expert, Dr Kim Hakin, struggled to answer vital questions put to him by the panel, often saying he didn't know, or ‘maybe’, 'my understanding is’, or ‘I would expect’, proving that he was not fit for the purpose he was paid for.
What is his area of expertise that gave the GMC cause to believe he was capable of commenting on such an important case?
9. According to the GMC ethical guidance, 'you must make clear the limits of your competence and knowledge when giving evidence or acting as a witness’. Should Dr Hakin have admitted that this case was beyond his experience BEFORE the hearing?
10. Is this a breach of the GMC’s own rules?
Should any of my questions need rephrasing, or are unclear, please let me know.
Thank you
Sasha Rodoy
Thank you for getting in touch. Please note this is an automated email.
Your receipt of this means that we have safely received your email.
We are currently receiving a high volume of requests and there will be a
delay in getting back to you with a further acknowledgement. We will do so
as soon as we can.
In the meantime, if you want any further information about the GMC, please
visit our website: [1]Home - GMC (gmc-uk.org)
Thank you
Information Access team
General Medical Council
Email: [2][GMC request email]
Working with doctors Working for patients
The General Medical Council helps to protect patients and improve medical
education and practice in the UK by setting standards for students and
doctors. We support them in achieving (and exceeding) those standards, and
take action when they are not met.
Dear Sasha Rodoy,
Your information request – IR1-4050072448
Thank you for your Email below dated 16^th August 2023.
How we will consider your request
We are going to consider your request under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA). The FOIA gives us 20 working days to respond, but we’ll come
back to you as soon as we can.
Yours Sincerely,
Alex Mason
Information Access Assistant
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Dear Alex
Please be advised that, by law, the GMC response to my FOI request was due by 14 September.
It is now 12 days late, yet no reason for the excessive delay given.
I look forward to your urgent response before taking my complaint to the ICO.
Thank you
Sasha Rodoy
My Beautiful Eyes Foundation
Patient Advocate & Campaign Manager
Thank you for getting in touch. Please note this is an automated email.
Your receipt of this means that we have safely received your email.
We are currently receiving a high volume of requests and there will be a
delay in getting back to you with a further acknowledgement. We will do so
as soon as we can.
In the meantime, if you want any further information about the GMC, please
visit our website: [1]Home - GMC (gmc-uk.org)
Thank you
Information Access team
General Medical Council
Email: [2][GMC request email]
General Medical Council
We work with doctors, patients, and other stakeholders to support good,
safe patient care across the UK. We set the standards doctors and those
who train them need to meet, and help them achieve them. If there are
concerns these standards may not be met or that public confidence in
doctors may be at risk, we can investigate, and take action if needed.
This email may contain privileged or confidential information which should
only be used for the purpose for which it has been sent.
If you are not the addressee or have received this email in error, please
do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it or any
attachments. Please email the sender and then immediately delete it.
The General Medical Council is a charity registered in England and Wales
(1089278) and in Scotland (SC037750)
_________________________________________________________________
Cyngor Meddygol Cyffredinol
Rydym yn gweithio gyda meddygon, cleifion a rhanddeiliaid eraill i
gynorthwyo gofal da a diogel i gleifion ar draws y DU. Rydym yn gosod y
safonau y bydd angen i feddygon a’r rhai sy’n eu hyfforddi eu bodloni, ac
yn eu helpu i’w cyflawni. Os bydd pryderon efallai na fydd y safonau hyn
yn cael eu cyflawni neu y gallai hyder y cyhoedd mewn meddygon fod mewn
perygl, gallwn ymchwilio, a gweithredu os oes angen.
Efallai bod y neges e-bost hon yn cynnwys gwybodaeth freiniol neu
gyfrinachol, y dylid ei defnyddio at y diben y’i hanfonwyd yn unig.
Os nad chi yw’r derbynnydd neu os ydych chi wedi cael yr e-bost hwn mewn
camgymeriad, peidiwch â’i ddarllen, argraffu, ail-anfon, storio na
gweithredu mewn ffordd sy’n dibynnu arni neu unrhyw atodiadau os gwelwch
yn dda. Dylech anfon e-bost at yr anfonwr ac yna, ei ddileu ar unwaith.
Mae’r Cyngor Meddygol Cyffredinol yn elusen gofrestredig yng Nghymru a
Lloegr (1089278) ac yn Yr Alban (SC037750)
References
Visible links
1. https://www.gmc-uk.org/
2. mailto:[GMC request email]
Dear Ms Rodoy
Thank you for your email.
I apologise for the delay in responding to you.
We will respond to your request as soon as possible. If there is likely to be any further delay beyond 6 October 2023 we will let you know.
Yours sincerely
Elizabeth Hiley
Information Access Manager
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street, Manchester, M3 3AW
Dear Sasha Rodoy
I’m writing regarding your Freedom of Information request (our reference
IR1-4050072448). Please accept my apologies for the continued delay in
processing your request. I hope to be able to get a response to you before
the end of next week.
Yours sincerely
Edd Mustill
Information Access Officer
Information Access Team
General Medical Council
[1]www.gmc-uk.org
E: [2][email address]
Dear Sasha Rodoy
Your information access request IR1-4050072448
Thank you for your email dated 16 August asking various questions about a
hearing relating to Dr Prashant Jindal. I’ve considered your request under
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). I’m sorry for the delay in
providing this response and any inconvenience caused.
1. After extensive consideration, and specifically asking the RCOphth if a
non medically qualified person was allowed to perform laser eye surgery
ops (GMC didn't know!), Case Examiners referred Dr Jindal to a FtP
hearing.
FIVE Accuvision patients provided their consent forms to the GMC, all
stating that a 'non medically qualified’ person might [illegally] operate.
Regardless of whoever operated, and outwith the purview of the CQC, Dr
Jindal signed four of these, confirming his agreement to illegal
activities.
Why then, as his regulator, did the GMC not subsequently consider Dr
Jindal subject to an Interim Order?
I can’t provide the information you requested because it would breach data
protection legislation to give this to you. We believe it’s reasonable for
doctors and complainants to expect that complaints and any associated
information will be treated as confidential. Where a case progresses to a
hearing, or an investigation concludes with a warning or undertakings,
certain information may be made publicly available by the GMC, in line
with our publication and disclosure policy for fitness to practise
information. Otherwise the information is treated as the confidential
personal data of the doctor and other parties involved. I’ve given details
of the exemption under the FOIA which applies below.
2. Why was it so difficult to find an 'appropriate expert with experience
of refractive eye surgery’?
3. How many refractive surgeons are on the GMC list of experts?
There are 19 experts on our Expert Witness List with a specialty of
Ophthalmology of which 10 have a status of ‘Current.’ In order to answer
your question I’ve reviewed the CVs supplied by the experts. Of the 10
experts with ‘Current’ status, the CVs of 9 indicate they have experience
of eye surgery. Of these, two specifically mention refractive surgery;
however this does not necessarily indicate that the others do not have
experience of refractive eye surgery.
4. In the same way that I would not expect the GMC to instruct a
gynaecologist to report on a case against a heart surgeon, why did the GMC
consider it appropriate in this case to instruct an expert without
'specific experience of refractive eye surgery’?
I can’t answer this as it’s not a request for recorded information and is
therefore not a valid request under Section 8 of the FOIA.
5. In 2019, there were only TWO patients to be considered, definitely not
’so many’. Did the GMC tell the experts they approached that there were
only TWO?
(NB: I submitted requests under Rule 12 for two other patients in 2020,
which lead to a delay in the hearing listing.)
6. Did your 'medically qualified Case Examiner’ have experience in
refractive surgery?
7. If no, what is their medical background?
8. At the May 2022 FtP hearing, your instructed expert, Dr Kim Hakin,
struggled to answer vital questions put to him by the panel, often saying
he didn't know, or ‘maybe’, 'my understanding is’, or ‘I would expect’,
proving that he was not fit for the purpose he was paid for.
What is his area of expertise that gave the GMC cause to believe he was
capable of commenting on such an important case?
I can’t provide further information about experts and case examiners
involved in a specific fitness to practise case. I’ve given the details of
the exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act that apply below.
9. According to the GMC ethical guidance, 'you must make clear the limits
of your competence and knowledge when giving evidence or acting as a
witness’. Should Dr Hakin have admitted that this case was beyond his
experience BEFORE the hearing?
10. Is this a breach of the GMC’s own rules?
I can’t provide an answer to the above two questions as they aren’t
requests for recorded information and therefore are not valid requests
under Section 8 of the FOIA.
The exemptions
Section 40(2), by virtue of section 40(3A)(a)
This exemption applies where the information is the personal data of a
third party and where releasing the information would breach any of the
principles relating to the processing of personal data listed at Article 5
of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). In this instance
disclosure would breach the first principle, which requires the processing
of information to be lawful, fair and transparent. I do not believe that
any of the legal bases for processing listed at Article 6 of the UK GDPR
are met and therefore giving you the information would be unlawful
Section 31(1)(g) leading to section 31(2)(d)
This exemption relates to information which, if disclosed, would be likely
to prejudice our regulatory function of assessing doctors’ fitness to
practise. This exemption is subject to a public interest test. In this
case I believe that the public interest in withholding this information
outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Your right to appeal
I'm sorry I couldn’t provide all the information you requested. If you
would like to appeal this decision please set out your reasons in writing
to [1][GMC request email]. Please note that we will only usually consider
appeals received within 40 working days of our response. You can also
appeal to the [2]Information Commissioner, the regulator of the FOIA and
DPA.
Yours sincerely
Edd Mustill
Information Access Officer
Information Access Team
General Medical Council
[3]www.gmc-uk.org
E: [4][email address]
T: 0161 923 7128
I am writing to request an internal review of General Medical Council's handling of my FOI request 'Dr Prashant JINDAL's medical expert'.
Your response is unsatisfactory, not correct in its claim that answering some of the questions would be a breach of data protection, a total lack of transparency, hiding information that I believe should be available to the public.
Re ‘I can’t answer this as it’s not a request for recorded information and is therefore not a valid request under Section 8 of the FOIA.’
Please therefore advise who can answer these questions?
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...
Thank you
Sasha Rodoy
Thank you for getting in touch. Please note this is an automated email.
Your receipt of this means that we have safely received your email.
We are currently receiving a high volume of requests and there will be a
delay in getting back to you with a further acknowledgement. We will do so
as soon as we can.
In the meantime, if you want any further information about the GMC, please
visit our website: [1]Home - GMC (gmc-uk.org)
Thank you
Information Access team
General Medical Council
Email: [2][GMC request email]
General Medical Council
We work with doctors, patients, and other stakeholders to support good,
safe patient care across the UK. We set the standards doctors and those
who train them need to meet, and help them achieve them. If there are
concerns these standards may not be met or that public confidence in
doctors may be at risk, we can investigate, and take action if needed.
This email may contain privileged or confidential information which should
only be used for the purpose for which it has been sent.
If you are not the addressee or have received this email in error, please
do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it or any
attachments. Please email the sender and then immediately delete it.
The General Medical Council is a charity registered in England and Wales
(1089278) and in Scotland (SC037750)
_________________________________________________________________
Cyngor Meddygol Cyffredinol
Rydym yn gweithio gyda meddygon, cleifion a rhanddeiliaid eraill i
gynorthwyo gofal da a diogel i gleifion ar draws y DU. Rydym yn gosod y
safonau y bydd angen i feddygon a’r rhai sy’n eu hyfforddi eu bodloni, ac
yn eu helpu i’w cyflawni. Os bydd pryderon efallai na fydd y safonau hyn
yn cael eu cyflawni neu y gallai hyder y cyhoedd mewn meddygon fod mewn
perygl, gallwn ymchwilio, a gweithredu os oes angen.
Efallai bod y neges e-bost hon yn cynnwys gwybodaeth freiniol neu
gyfrinachol, y dylid ei defnyddio at y diben y’i hanfonwyd yn unig.
Os nad chi yw’r derbynnydd neu os ydych chi wedi cael yr e-bost hwn mewn
camgymeriad, peidiwch â’i ddarllen, argraffu, ail-anfon, storio na
gweithredu mewn ffordd sy’n dibynnu arni neu unrhyw atodiadau os gwelwch
yn dda. Dylech anfon e-bost at yr anfonwr ac yna, ei ddileu ar unwaith.
Mae’r Cyngor Meddygol Cyffredinol yn elusen gofrestredig yng Nghymru a
Lloegr (1089278) ac yn Yr Alban (SC037750)
References
Visible links
1. https://www.gmc-uk.org/
2. mailto:[GMC request email]
Dear Sasha Rodoy,
Thank you for your email dated 13 October.
We will be considering your email as a Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FOIA) appeal. We have a target response time of 20 working days. We will
endeavour to respond to you within this timeframe.
Yours sincerely
Lauren Barrowcliffe
Information Access Team Assistant
[1][email address]
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester
M3 3AW
Dear Ms Rodoy
I write further to previous correspondance with a response. My
consideration of your appeal of 13 October 2023 is below.
It seems that your first question is in reference to the quote you
attribute to Mr Hall dated 3 April 2019. In that context, and in the
context of the paragraphs immediately preceding the question, I confirm
that we do not hold any information within the scope of your request and
am thus removing our reliance on Section 40(2), by virtue of section
40(3A)(a).
In respect of questions two (which I appreciate we did not provide an
explicit answer to in our original response), four, nine and ten I confirm
that these are not legitimate questions within the meaning of S8 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 as they are requests for explanations
rather than recorded information, therefore we have no obligation to
respond to them under FOIA. I believe that this is in line with the
following Information Commissioner decisions [1]here, [2]here and [3]here.
Skipping question three which we answered, we are applying Section 40(2)
to questions five though eight.
In respect of question five, what and in what terms we instructed the
expert on is at least the personal data of Dr Jindal.
Turning to questions six and seven, the information you requested is the
personal data of the case examiner.
In respect of question eight the information you seek is the personal data
of the expert.
From the above, it follows therefore, that we are withdrawing our reliance
on Section 31(1)(g) leading to section 31(2)(d) to the extent that it was
previously used.
As you know, you have a further right of appeal to the ICO. The online
portal to do this is [4]here. Their phone number is 0303 123 1113 and
address is: Wycliffe House, Water Ln, Wilmslow SK9 5AF.
---
Kind Regards
Matt
Matthew McCoig-Lees
Senior Information Access Officer
Information Access Team
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester
M3 3AW
Email: [5][email address]
Website: [6]www.gmc-uk.org
Tel: 0161 923 6579
I sometimes work flexibly and therefore this email may reach you outside
of core working hours. I don’t expect you to respond outside of your own
working hours.
From: FOI
Sent: 16 October 2023 14:17
To: [FOI #1015748 email]
Subject: RE: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Dr
Prashant JINDAL's medical expert
Dear Sasha Rodoy,
Thank you for your email dated 13 October.
We will be considering your email as a Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FOIA) appeal. We have a target response time of 20 working days. We will
endeavour to respond to you within this timeframe.
Yours sincerely
Lauren Barrowcliffe
Information Access Team Assistant
[7][email address]
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester
M3 3AW
Dear Matthew McCoig-Lees,
My FOI asked:
“5. In 2019, there were only TWO patients to be considered, definitely not
’so many’. Did the GMC tell the experts they approached that there were
only TWO?
(NB: I submitted requests under Rule 12 for two other patients in 2020,
which lead to a delay in the hearing listing.)”
You replied:
‘In respect of question five, what and in what terms we instructed the
expert on is at least the personal data of Dr Jindal.’
This cannot possibly be considered ‘the personal data of Dr Jindal’.
Please reconsider my request.
Thank you
Sasha Rodoy
(My Beautiful Eyes Foundation)
Dear Ms Rodoy
My previous email constitutes our formal reconsideration of your initial
request and we will not formally reconsider it again. There is no
obligation on us to do so in information access law.
However, by way of further explanation, the ICO explains that “‘personal
data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable
natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who
can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to
an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an
online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical,
physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of
that natural person”.
They also explain that ‘data may be personal data because it is clearly
‘linked to’ an individual as it is about his or her activities and you are
processing it for the purpose of determining or influencing the way in
which that individual is treated. Data may also be personal data if it is
biographically significant or has a particular individual as the focus.’
They further explain that 'Relates to' means that it is being used to
'learn, evaluate, treat in a certain way, make a decision about, or
influence the status or behaviour of an individual.'
When considering this, it is plain that what the GMC is investigating is
biographically significant to Dr Jindal and has him as the focus as well
as being linked to us making a decision about him therefore is his
personal data.
If you remain unhappy about this you are free to contact the Information
Commissioner whose contact details have been provided previously.
---
Kind Regards
Matt
Matthew McCoig-Lees
Senior Information Access Officer
Information Access Team
General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester
M3 3AW
Email: [email address]
Website: www.gmc-uk.org
Tel: 0161 923 6579
I sometimes work flexibly and therefore this email may reach you outside
of core working hours. I don’t expect you to respond outside of your own
working hours.
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now