1. Home
  2. Hearings and decisions
  3. Medical practitioners tribunals
  4. Dr Amoolya PRASAD Nov 18

Dr Amoolya PRASAD

Medical practitioners tribunal – Review Hearing scheduled
Outcome on impairment
Hearing not yet held
Summary of outcome
Hearing not yet held
Type of case
Performance
Hearing date from
22 Apr 2020
Hearing date to
22 Apr 2020
Details
Adjourned part heard. Previously sat: 19-30 November 2018, 30-31 May 2019, 9 July 2019, 9-10 December 2019, 16-17 December 2019, 13- 15 January 2020 and 23 March 2020. This hearing will also sit on 28 April 2020.
Location of hearing
This will be a virtual hearing, as our hearing centre is currently closed. It is not possible to attend this virtual hearing, but any decisions will be posted here shortly after its conclusion. COVID-19 statement
GMC reference number
2575269
Area of practice
Sandwell

Pre hearing information

Allegation

The tribunal will review the case of Dr Prasad, whose fitness to practise has previously been found impaired by reason of deficient professional performance and whose registration is subject to a substantive order of conditions until 8 August 2019.

Prior to adjourning part-heard on 15 January 2020, the tribunal determined that Dr Prasad’s fitness to practise remains impaired by reason of deficient professional performance.

 

Allegations

This reflects the allegation as it stands at the start of the hearing. The allegation may be amended as the hearing proceeds and when findings of fact are made by the tribunal.

Decisions

All decisions are published online within 28 days of the conclusion of the hearing.

Journalists

If you're a journalist and need up to date information about the allegation throughout the course of the hearing, please contact our press office at pressoffice@mpts-uk.org or call 0161 250 6868.

Private hearings

In accordance with Rule 41(2) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, the tribunal may decide to exclude the public from the proceedings or any part of the proceedings, where they consider that the circumstances of the case outweigh the public interest in holding the hearing in public.