Dr Vikas Jagdishlal SETH

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
03 Jun 2019
Hearing date to
07 Jun 2019
Location of hearing
St James’s Buildings, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ (get directions)
GMC reference number
6106946
Area of incident
Stafford

Pre hearing information

Allegation

The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that Dr Seth failed to inform the GMC without delay that, on 6 September 2012, he was convicted of three driving offences, including driving without due care and attention, property damage, failing to stop and give his name and address to the owner and failing to report the incident to a police station.

 

The tribunal will also inquire into a further allegation that Dr Seth submitted an application for Voluntary Erasure from the medical register to the GMC, in which he failed to disclose these offences, as well as failing to disclose in response to a question on the form that he was also registered with the Delhi Medical Council. Further, the tribunal will inquire into the allegation that Dr Seth failed to disclose that he had received a warning from the GMC.

 

It is alleged that these actions were dishonest.

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.