Dr Nishanth NAIR

Medical practitioners tribunal – New Hearing scheduled
Outcome on impairment
Hearing not yet held
Summary of outcome
Hearing not yet held
Type of case
Misconduct
Hearing date from
20 May 2019
Hearing date to
22 May 2019
History
Previously sat 1- 19 Oct 2018 and 14 - 18 Jan, 7- 8 Mar 2019.
Location of hearing
St James’s Buildings, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ (get directions)
GMC reference number
6156848
Area of practice
Gloucester, Slough

Pre hearing information

Allegation

The tribunal has found proved that on 9 June 2015, 29 May 2015 and 10 March 2016, Dr Nair consulted with Patients A, B and C respectively.

In relation to Patients A, B and C, the Tribunal found proved that, during his examinations Dr Nair moved their clothing without express consent and did not afford them the opportunity to move their own clothing. It also found that Dr Nair failed to offer Patient A appropriate covering material during the examination. Further, the Tribunal found that Dr Nair failed to offer Patients A and C a chaperone.

In relation to each patient the Tribunal found not proved that aspects of the examinations that Dr Nair conducted were not clinically indicated or were sexually motivated.

The tribunal will reconvene to continue its consideration of the case.

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.