Dr Jagjit Kaur SAHOTA

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 Jan 2021
Hearing date to
18 Jan 2021
Location of hearing
This was a virtual hearing. Contact us about observing this hearing
GMC reference number
Area of practice

Pre hearing information


The tribunal will enquire into the allegation that, in August 2014, Dr Sahota was informed that she was being awarded an Outcome 4 in her Annual Review of Competence Progression (‘ARCP’) and was released from her GP training programme after failing the Applied Knowledge Test multiple times.

The tribunal will further enquire into the allegation that, in October 2017 at an interview with West Middlesex University Hospital, Dr Sahota was dishonest about the reasons she had left GP training and was not on the GP Register. Additionally, the tribunal will enquire into the allegation that, in December 2018 at a meeting with Dr C, Dr Sahota was dishonest about the completion of her GP training.
Additionally, it is alleged that Dr Sahota undertook two placements through DRC Locums on 5 and 7 January 2018. It is alleged that, on 11 January 2018, Dr Sahota advised the GMC that she had not undertaken any work for DRC Locums, and that her actions in so doing so 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.