Dr Nitin Bachchan TRIVEDI

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
28 Jan 2019
Hearing date to
01 Feb 2019
Location of hearing
St James’s Buildings, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ (get directions)
GMC reference number
Area of incident

Pre hearing information


The Tribunal will enquire into the allegation that, on 6 February 2017 at Weymouth Magistrates’ Court, Dr Trivedi was convicted of two offences of pursuing a course of conduct which amounted to harassment, and which he knew or ought to have known amounted to harassment contrary to section 2(1) and (2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

The Tribunal will further enquire into the allegation that, on 7 April 2017, Dr Trivedi was sentenced at Bournemouth Crown Court to: a fine of £1,000.00 per count; a restraining order.

It is further alleged that, on 12 July 2017 at Bournemouth Crown Court, Dr Trivedi was convicted of breach of a restraining order x3. Additionally, it is alleged that, on 4 September 2017 at Bournemouth Crown Court, Dr Trivedi was sentenced to 18 weeks’ imprisonment suspended for 2 years (each count concurrent).

It is alleged that Dr Trivedi’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of his convictions.


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.