Public Minutes of the Investigation Committee Date of hearing: 14 September 2017 Name of Doctor Dr Arun Dev Vellore Doctor s UID 4782728 Committee Members Mr Ian Kennedy (Chair) Professor Jennifer Adgey (Medical) Mrs Toni Foers (Lay) Legal Assessor Panel Secretary Mr Bernard Phillips Mr Declan Leahy Attendance and Representation GMC Representative Doctor s attendance Doctor s representative Mr Kevin Slack Attended and represented Mr Selva Ramasamy Outcome Warning
Determination Dr Vellore, 1 At today s hearing the Investigation Committee carefully considered all the material before it including the submissions made by Mr Ramasamy on your behalf, and those made on behalf of the GMC by Mr Slack. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. 2 The Committee is aware that it must have in mind the GMC s role of protecting the public, which includes: a. Protecting, promoting and maintaining the health, safety and well-being of the public b. Promoting and maintaining public confidence in the medical profession, and c. Promoting and maintaining proper professional standards and conduct for members of that profession 3 In deciding whether to issue a warning the Committee must apply the principle of proportionality, and balance the interests of the public with those of the practitioner. 4 In an email dated 8 January 2016 you informed the GMC that on 6 March 2015 you were convicted of driving a motor vehicle in a public place after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath, namely 62 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The legal limit is 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. 5 The circumstances which led to your conviction are that on 30 October 2014 you consumed two glasses of wine at home which you said amounted to half a bottle. You then went to pick up your daughter. Whilst driving you were stopped by the police who had been alerted by a member of the public that you had been driving erratically. You provided a positive sample of breath at the scene and then when tested at the police station, you provided a sample of 62 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. 6 On 17 March 2017 the GMC wrote to you in accordance with Rules 7 and 11 of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, and advised you that the Case Examiners had considered the allegation and supporting information and had decided that this case may conclude with a warning.
7 On 19 April 2017 your representatives wrote to the GMC and submitted that a warning was not appropriate in this case. They said that you were willing to accept GMC undertakings and invited the Case Examiners to dispose of the case in this way. 8 On 20 June 2017 the GMC informed you that the case had been referred for consideration by this Committee. GMC Submissions 9 At today s hearing, Mr Slack, on behalf of the GMC, submitted that a warning is an appropriate and proportionate outcome in this case. He said your conduct does not meet with the standards required of a doctor. It risks bringing the profession into disrepute and must not be repeated. 10 Mr Slack said that on 6 March 2015 you were convicted of drink driving by Birmingham Magistrates Court; you were disqualified from driving for 17 months and fined. He said this conduct does not meet with the standards required of a doctor. He drew attention to the police report prepared for court in which the arresting officer recorded that you had admitted to drinking two glasses of wine amounting to half a bottle after receiving some good news. 11 The required standards are set out in Good medical practice and associated guidance. In this case, paragraph 65 of Good Medical Practice is particularly relevant: 65. You must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients trust in you and the public s trust in the profession. He submitted that whilst this failing in itself is not so serious as to require any restriction on your registration, it is necessary in response to issue a formal warning. 12 Mr Slack drew the attention of the Committee to the GMC s Guidance on Warnings. He said the guidance states that examples of convictions that have resulted in a warning include one-off drink driving offences where they are satisfied that there are no underlying health concerns. He submitted that it was the GMC s position that there was no evidence before this Committee that linked your conduct in drinking two glasses of wine before driving a motor vehicle to any health problems you may have. Mr Slack submitted that patients and the public s confidence in the profession would be impacted should the Committee not issue a warning in this case. He addressed the Committee on health issues and stated that they were not relevant to the circumstances of the conviction. Defence Submissions 13 Mr Ramasamy, on your behalf, submitted that it would be neither appropriate nor proportionate to conclude the case with a warning and that the Committee should take no further action in this case. 14 Mr Ramasamy said that you are a very well-respected doctor of previous good character. He said that this was an isolated incident and you had no previous caution or convictions and no previous fitness to practise history with the GMC. 2
15 XXX 16 XXX 17 Mr Ramasamy said that you had insight into your conduct and you accept that what you did was serious. However he submitted that the public would not expect the Committee to issue a warning in this case due to the individual factual matrix XXX. Mr Ramasamy said that you had received a conviction for your conduct and therefore the public would accept that appropriate action had been taken against you. Committee Decision 18 The Committee accepts that this is an isolated incident and you are a respected doctor with no previous concerns about your fitness to practise. The Committee was particularly impressed by the number of testimonials presented to it covering your professional practice. It notes that there has been no repetition of this behaviour. XXX. 19 The Committee was however satisfied that this was a significant departure from Good Medical Practice. The Committee saw no reason to doubt the police report which was a document designed to assist the court. In any event it is not in issue that you drank two glasses, or half a bottle, of wine. You would have known that this placed you over the prescribed limit for driving and you knew that you had consumed this amount before setting off on a planned journey to collect your daughter. 20 XXX 21 The Committee considers that it is necessary to issue a warning in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper professional standards. It did not consider that the mitigation set out by the defence justified taking no action in this case. The offence of driving over the prescribed limit is a serious matter and a warning is therefore both proportionate and necessary, in the following terms; On 6 March 2015 you were convicted by Birmingham Magistrates Court. of driving with alcohol over the prescribed limit in your system. This conduct does not meet with the standards required of a doctor. It risks bringing the profession into disrepute and it must not be repeated. The required standards are set out in Good medical practice and associated guidance. In this case, paragraph 65 of Good Medical Practice is particularly relevant: 65. You must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients trust in you and the public s trust in the profession. Whilst this failing in itself is not so serious as to require any restriction on your registration, it is necessary in response to issue this formal warning. 3
This warning will be published on the List of Registered Medical Practitioners (LRMP) for a period of five years and will be disclosed to any person enquiring about your fitness to practise history. After five years, the warning will cease to be published on LRMP however it will be kept on record and disclosed to employers on request. 22 You will be notified of this decision in the next two working days. 23 That concludes the determination of the Investigation Committee in this case. 4