1. Home
  2. Hearings and decisions
  3. Medical practitioners tribunals
  4. Dr Avinash SACHDEV Aug 22

Dr Avinash SACHDEV

Medical practitioners tribunal – New Hearing scheduled
Outcome on impairment
Hearing not yet held
Summary of outcome
Hearing not yet held
Type of case
Hearing date from
11 Aug 2022
Hearing date to
19 Aug 2022
Location of hearing
This is a virtual hearing. It is possible to observe proceedings from our Manchester hearing centre. Please give us 14 days' notice if you would like to attend, so arrangements can be made. Contact us about observing a hearing
Area of incident

Pre hearing information

The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that on more than one occasion between 2 September 2018 and 27 March 2019, Dr Sachdev submitted timesheets to Bank Partners for work undertaken at the University College London Hospitals (“UCLH”) between 9 August 2018 to 22 March 2019 when he had not worked at UCLH on one or more of the dates claimed for.

It’s further alleged that on 5 October 2020, Dr Sachdev provided a CV to Great Ormond Street Hospital (“GOSH”), in which he claimed to have worked as a clinical fellow at: GOSH between February 2016 and October 2016; at UCLH between July 2017 to May 2018 and June 2018 to March 2020 and Heartlands Hospital from March 2020 onwards. It is alleged that Dr Sachdev’s actions were dishonest.

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.


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


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.