The family doctor was suspended due to “overfeeding” her request for a new NHS work laptop to help her treat patients. Dr. Manjula Arora, 58, was reported to the General Medical Council (GMC) after she wrongly told IT officials that her boss had “promised” her the facility when he actually “recorded her interest” in getting one.
Dr. Arora, who worked in Manchester as a local doctor for Mastercall providers outside working hours, was subjected to a 15-month investigation after her remark. It culminated in the face of eight days of disciplinary proceedings and she was found guilty of dishonesty, serious professional misconduct and “deterioration” in her ability to practice medicine.
Yesterday, May 25, an argument broke out after Dr. Arora – who qualified 35 years ago and is described as a woman with “strong moral principles” – was banned from treating patients for a month. The Judicial Service of Medical Practitioners stated that the suspension “will send a message that her mistake, even if related to a single fleeting moment of dishonesty, is not acceptable.”
READ MORE:BREAKING: “Critical Incidents” Announced at Oldham, Bury and Rochdale Hospitals Amid Major IT Failure
But Professor Sam Shah, who served as director of digital development at NHS England, said: has been supported and reportedly enforced in urgent care over the past two years. It is disappointing that this case turns on the laptop. “
The saga began in December 2019 after Dr. Arora, who lives in Hale Barns near Altrincham, exchanged e-mails with Stockport-based Medical Director, a stockport based in Stockport, to get a work laptop to help her with her responsibilities.
In his response on Christmas Day, the boss, who was referred to at the hearing as Dr. B., said: “We do not have any laptops at the moment, but I will record your interest when the next launch. Technology is advancing, we may soon be able to allow doctors to use their own computers and monitor the space. ”
However, the problem occurred on December 30, 2019, when Dr. Arora spoke to Mastercall’s IT support analyst and referred to her laptop e-mail exchange with Dr. B. She told the analyst: “He said that the next time he was available, give it to me, so you have laptops and I thought it would be best if I took one because I don’t want too many people involved, just him and you. My [Dr B] who promised it. You’ll be able to talk to him directly, we’ve talked about the laptop. ”
Dr. Arora, whose husband is an advisory surgeon, was referred for investigation in February 2020 after Dr. B learned of her discussion with the analyst. For GMC lawyer Carl Hargan, he said the word “promise” is “a whole world away” from the real words of Dr. B. Computer.
” The analyst believed that Doctor B had allowed one and that he could therefore give her one. No other doctor has ever approached him as Dr. Arora did. ”
Mr Hargan said Dr. B’s e-mail was “completely unambiguous” and could not “in any way, shape or form” mean that he would “promise” her a laptop, and continued: reputation.”
As evidence at the Manchester hearing, Dr. B said that Dr. Arora was not “at the top of the list” of requests and said his Christmas report was a “withheld email.” He said he “did not want to give negative news before the busiest time of the year,” although he said he would not necessarily refuse Dr. Aror a laptop.
Dr Arora said in a statement: “I accept that I may have interpreted it [Dr B’s] the words “notice your interest” as something more definite than he actually thought.
” I don’t think the word ‘promised’ was appropriate and maybe it wasn’t a word I should have used, but I thought he wanted to give it to me. It’s a connotation I took from it. I said he promised because I understood that he wanted to give me a laptop. “
Dr. Arora’s lawyer, Alan Jenkins, said: “Dr. Arora didn’t try to hope she could get something she wouldn’t get anyway. It was not an operational fraud and that any dishonesty was the result of slight exaggeration.
” She interpreted Dr. B’s e-mail as “thumbs up,” and her attitude is that if she was told she wouldn’t get a laptop, we wouldn’t be here now. ”
He added: “Although Dr. Arora may have been” exaggerating “her claim that Dr. B promised her a laptop, she is not a dishonest person, just someone who has said one dishonest thing. It does not pose a risk to the public. ”
When suspending Dr. Arora MPTS President Peter Schofield said: “The tribunal took into account its good character and the testimony it received on its behalf. She generally admitted that she was not a dishonest person.
But with specific reference to her use of the word ‘promised’, the tribunal concluded that it was more likely than not that Dr. Arora had exaggerated her position to reinforce her laptop request. As she herself acknowledged, it was not appropriate to use the word and should not say what she did. Ordinary, decent people would find her use of the word “promised” dishonest.
“The General Court concluded that a short standstill period would send the medical professions and the general public a proper message that Dr Arora’s mistake, even if it concerned a single moment of dishonesty and not planned fraud, was unacceptable and that this standstill period would adequately reflected the seriousness of her conduct. “
Dr Chandra Kanneganti, president of the British International Medical Association, said: days. BIDA will fully support Dr Arora if it intends to appeal against this disproportionate response. “
“It’s not just a mockery of justice or a waste of GMC time and energy, but much worse is the demoralizing impact on doctors and wider medical professionals,” added Dr. Ramesh Mehta, President of the British Association of Physicians of Indian Descent. .
“We know that some GMC officials are determined to punish doctors regardless of the facts of the case. We have alerted the GMC to this problem.”
To receive the latest email updates from Manchester Evening News, click here.