1. Home
  2. Hearings and decisions
  3. Medical practitioners tribunals
  4. Dr Mihir CHANDARANA Jun 24

Dr Mihir CHANDARANA

Medical practitioners tribunal – New Hearing scheduled
Outcome on impairment
Hearing not yet held
Summary of outcome
Hearing not yet held
Type of case
Conviction / Caution
Hearing date from
17 Oct 2024
Hearing date to
17 Oct 2024
Details
Hearing adjourned part heard. Previously sat: 19 - 21 June and 30 August 2024.
Location of hearing
7560626
Area of incident
Chesterfield, Derby

Pre hearing information

Allegation

The tribunal has already found proved that, on 20 November 2023, at Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court, Dr Chandarana was convicted of intentionally attempting to communicate sexually with a person under 16 for the purposes of sexual gratification.

It has also found proved that, on 11 January 2024, Dr Chandarana was sentenced to a four month custodial sentence suspended for 12 months, a rehabilitation activity requirement and an unpaid work requirement of 200 hours. It has also found proved that Dr Chandarana is subject to notification requirements for a period of seven years.

The tribunal has found that Dr Chandarana’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of conviction. It will reconvene to consider which sanction, if any, to impose on Dr Chandarana’s registration.


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.