1. Home
  2. Hearings and decisions
  3. Medical practitioners tribunals
  4. Dr Sameh HINDI Nov 20

Dr Sameh HINDI

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 Nov 2020
Hearing date to
10 Dec 2020
Location of hearing
This is a virtual hearing. It is possible to observe proceedings from our Manchester hearing centre. Please give us with 14 days' notice if you would like to attend, so arrangements can be made. Contact us about observing this hearing
GMC reference number
Area of practice

Pre hearing information


The tribunal will enquire into the allegation that, on 14 June 2017, Dr Hindi performed a phacoemulsification procedure (‘the procedure’) on Patient A, which was complicated by a posterior capsular rupture (‘the rupture’). It is alleged that Dr Hindi failed to notify Patient A of the rupture following the procedure, and failed to advise Patient A of the potential side effects of the rupture.

It is further alleged that, on 19 June 2017, Dr Hindi failed to advise Patient A to attend the Accident and Emergency department for urgent treatment, and failed to have adequate regard to his conversation with Ms B on 18 June 2017 in which he was advised that Patient A was suffering with pain.



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.