UK Tribunal Rules Doctor Who Had Sexual Encounter During Surgery Poses “Very Low Risk” Of Repeat Misconduct

A British medical tribunal has ruled that a consultant anesthetist who engaged in sexual activity with a nurse while a patient was under general anesthetic poses a “very low risk” of repeating such behavior.

The case involves 44-year-old Dr. Suhail Anjum, a married father of three, who was caught in a compromising position with a nurse during a surgical procedure at Tameside Hospital in Ashton-under-Lyne, Greater Manchester, on September 16, 2023.

According to reports, Dr. Anjum told colleagues he needed to use the bathroom but instead went to another operating theatre, which was partly being used as a storage area. There, he engaged in sexual activity with Nurse C, only to be discovered by a shocked colleague.

Seun Kuti Links BBL Surgery To Property Ownership Among Nigerian Women

Misconduct and Dismissal

The incident was immediately reported to hospital management. Following an internal investigation, Dr. Anjum was dismissed from his post in February 2024.

The consultant anaesthetist later admitted before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) that his conduct had been inappropriate. He acknowledged that he had put his own interests above those of his patient and colleagues, thereby compromising professional standards.

Although no harm was reported to have occurred to the patient, tribunal documents noted that Dr. Anjum’s misconduct “had the potential to distract him” at a critical time when he was expected to provide full attention to anaesthetic monitoring.

Tribunal Findings

On Monday, the tribunal ruled that Dr. Anjum’s behaviour amounted to serious misconduct, stressing that it undermined public trust in the medical profession.

Tribunal chairwoman Rebecca Miller said the doctor’s conduct, though not resulting in direct harm, was nonetheless grave:

“Dr. Anjum had put his own interests before those of the patient and his colleagues. The incident had the potential to distract him… and he may not have been able to give his full attention to the patient’s care.”

Miller added that the misconduct was “significant enough to amount to serious misconduct,” highlighting the breach of professional responsibility in an operating theatre environment.

Assessment of Risk

Despite the severity of the incident, the tribunal considered whether Dr. Anjum should face further disciplinary action, including restrictions on his medical licence.

After evaluating his testimony and evidence of remorse, Miller concluded that he posed a “very low risk” of repeating such behaviour.

“The tribunal considered that members of the public and the profession would understand the high level of scrutiny to which Dr. Anjum had been subjected, and that a finding of serious misconduct would weigh heavily upon him,” she said.

It was further noted that the doctor appeared determined to rebuild his career, having relocated with his family to Pakistan following his dismissal. He has since worked as a doctor there and expressed his desire to return to practise in the United Kingdom.

Public Confidence and Sanctions

The tribunal stopped short of imposing a suspension or revoking Dr. Anjum’s licence. Miller explained that the public finding of serious misconduct alone was considered sufficient to uphold professional standards and maintain public confidence in the medical profession.

“The tribunal was satisfied that this public finding of serious misconduct was sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and proper professional standards, and that there was not a necessity to make a finding of impaired fitness to practise for that purpose,” Miller stated.

As a result, no immediate sanction was imposed on Dr. Anjum’s licence. However, the tribunal indicated that it would reconvene on Tuesday to determine whether a formal warning should be attached to his registration as a lasting reminder of his misconduct.

Reactions and Implications

The case has sparked wider discussions within the medical community and among the public. Critics argue that allowing Dr. Anjum to continue practising without suspension could raise concerns about accountability in cases of professional misconduct. Others maintain that since no patient was harmed and the doctor has shown remorse, the tribunal’s decision strikes a balance between justice and rehabilitation.

Medical ethicists note that the ruling underscores the importance of public trust in healthcare. They warn that while the tribunal found no ongoing risk, similar incidents could have devastating effects if they occur in future, particularly in high-stakes environments like operating theatres.

The ruling against Dr. Suhail Anjum highlights a complex case of professional misconduct in the UK’s healthcare sector. While his sexual encounter with a nurse during a surgical procedure was deemed serious, the tribunal found the risk of recurrence minimal and opted not to impose harsh sanctions.

The outcome serves as a reminder of the high standards expected of medical practitioners and the delicate balance tribunals must strike between upholding accountability and offering room for rehabilitation.

With the tribunal set to reconvene to decide whether a formal warning will be added to his medical record, the case continues to attract close attention from both the medical profession and the wider public.