1. Home
  2. Hearings and decisions
  3. Medical practitioners tribunals
  4. Dr Iqbal WARIS Sept 20

Dr Iqbal WARIS

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
28 Sep 2020
Hearing date to
02 Oct 2020
Location of hearing
St James’s Buildings, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ. It is possible to observe proceedings from our Manchester hearing centre. Please give us with 14 days notice if you would like to attend, so arrangements can be made. Contact us about attending this hearing
GMC reference number
Area of practice
Worcester, Warrington, Shropshire, Cotswold, Norwich, Mansfield

Pre hearing information


The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that, between April 2010 and June 2018, Dr Waris undertook locum shifts at a number of locations, when he was employed as Residential Medical Officer by Cape Medical Services (CMS). It is alleged that Dr Waris failed to notify CMS of his locum shifts and on one or more occasion between March and June 2018 he declined to undertake shifts for CMS.

It is further alleged that between October 2017 and October 2018, Dr Waris benefited from payments made by CMS to which he was not entitled. It is alleged that Dr Waris’s actions as set out above 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.