Judgment: 2018-05-08 · Court archive

High Court confirms radiologist’s removal from register and raises concern over HSE consultant appointments

The court confirmed the Medical Council’s decision to cancel Arjan Bhatia’s registration after more than 80 allegations were proved. The judgment also directed that it be sent to senior officials and agencies amid concern that the HSE had employed consultants who were not on the specialist register.

High Court · 2018 No. 139SP

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Arjan Bhatia (Respondent)
What

The court confirmed the Medical Council’s decision to cancel Arjan Bhatia’s registration after more than 80 allegations were proved. The judgment also directed that it be sent to senior officials and agencies amid concern that the HSE had employed consultants who were not on the specialist register.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Cavan General Hospital
  • Kerry General Hospital
  • Ireland
  • Cavan
  • Kerry
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Fitness to Practise Committee found multiple allegations proved beyond reasonable doubt, but recommended a censure and conditions rather than erasure from the register. The Medical Council later decided to cancel Bhatia’s registration. As he did not appeal, the Council applied to the High Court under section 76 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 for confirmation. The court confirmed the decision. The judgment does not identify any separate order for compensation or a review of affected patients’ care.

The High Court confirmed the Medical Council’s decision to cancel radiologist Arjan Bhatia’s registration after more than 80 allegations of poor professional performance were proved against him. The court had struck him off the Medical Register on 9 April 2018, preventing him from practising medicine in Ireland.

In a judgment delivered on 8 May, Mr Justice Kelly said the allegations concerned Bhatia’s work as a locum consultant radiologist at Cavan General Hospital between 3 June and 12 September 2014. Complaints related to his treatment of 43 patients. An independent expert’s evidence identified significant missed findings in scans, including fractures, bleeding, pulmonary emboli, cancerous masses and stroke. The expert also said Bhatia did not understand Doppler ultrasound principles.

The Fitness to Practise Committee found multiple allegations proved beyond reasonable doubt, but recommended a censure and conditions rather than erasure from the register. The Medical Council later decided to cancel Bhatia’s registration. As he did not appeal, the Council applied to the High Court under section 76 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 for confirmation. The court confirmed the decision. The judgment does not identify any separate order for compensation or a review of affected patients’ care.

The judge said Bhatia was not registered in the Specialist Division and was not qualified to join it. His appointment, the court found, breached the HSE’s own requirements for consultant posts. Evidence before the court indicated that the hospital was not involved in recruitment, which was handled by an agency, and learned of his registration status after he began work. The judgment also referred to his earlier work in other HSE hospitals, including Kerry General Hospital, but said there was no information about whether those patients had been reviewed.

The judgment’s wider concern was that the HSE had repeatedly employed consultants who were not on the Specialist Division, despite its own rules. The HSE told the court that 127 consultants in employment on 14 April 2018 were not registered in the relevant specialist division: 52 had taken up posts before 2008 and 75 afterwards. The judge described this as a breach of the HSE’s requirements and said the practice risked patient safety. He also noted that the Medical Council considered its statutory powers limited and that the law did not expressly prevent the HSE from appointing a doctor without specialist registration to a consultant post.

The court directed the Registrar to send the judgment to the Minister for Health, the Department’s Secretary General, the Attorney General, and the chief executives of the HSE, HIQA and the State Claims Agency. These directions sought to bring the concerns to their attention and prompt consideration of possible action; the court did not order legislative changes or direct those bodies to take specific measures. The judge said the Council could seek further relief if it considered that necessary to protect the public.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review