Dr Karena GHAUS

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
30 Apr 2019
Hearing date to
13 May 2019
Location of hearing
St James’s Buildings, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ (get directions)
GMC reference number
Area of practice

Pre hearing information


The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that on 20 June 2016 Dr Ghaus attended Chelsea and Westminster Hospital (‘the Hospital’) with Patient A with whom she had a close personal relationship. It is also alleged that Dr Ghaus submitted documents, including a medical report, to a Senior Social Worker, in respect of her attendance at the Hospital, which was inappropriate as she had a close personal relationship with Patient A; she had no clinical responsibility for Patient A and the Medical Report could have been regarded as a formal child protection report. It is further alleged that Dr Ghaus’ actions were dishonest.

It is also alleged that Dr Ghaus wrote a letter to the Multi-Agency Safe-guarding Hub of Wandsworth Council, in which she made a dishonest statement. It is alleged that the submission of the letter and statement was inappropriate as Dr Ghaus had a close personal relationship with Patient A and no clinical responsibility for Patient A.



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.