Dr Prashant Jindal | MPTS Fitness to Practise hearing

A week ago today, 10 June, the MPTS tribunal panel announced that they had been unable to conclude their deliberation on the outstanding facts and needed two more days.

Consulting with the MPTS diary, the earliest dates were 16 and 22 September when all panel members would be available.



Matthew Fiander, tribunal chair, went on to say that in the event that the facts were found proven in September, with the likelihood of being unable to secure available dates until many months later in 2023, then it was prudent to schedule dates in advance for stages 2 and 3 (impairment and sanctions).

These stages involve not just the panel but the lawyers too, so the earliest date they could all agree on was mid February. I didn’t note it down, but not important - yet!

Meanwhile, much to my surprise - or perhaps not, as the industry would blame me for World War II if I were old enough, the session opened with Andrew Colman talking about me

He said, and I quote: 'We’ve been deeply perturbed by the information about improper attempted approaches to members of the tribunal.*

Before this hearing began we took a finely balanced strategic decision about the extent to which we would explore or not, during the course of these proceedings the importance of Sasha Rodoy and/or others, in the way which these allegations have been presented, by the patients and to the tribunal… and we decided as you will have noted, not to explore that area to any significant extent.

Had we known about the lengths to which that witness [Sasha Rodoy] was apparently prepared to go, or has gone, to secure the result that she seeks, that finely balanced decision might have fallen in the other direction. We can't say that it would, it's a matter for careful and lengthy consideration.**’

He went on to say that it is not a criminal trial, but that if it were, then he might well be in a position of applying to discharge the jury because of those approaches.***

Rigby then responded that there’s a significant between tribunal and a jury, and that needed to be taken into account.

After Colman had done slating me, the discussion was mainly about dates, as previously mentioned.

*I have made no attempt to approach the tribunal members, and in fact someone else contacted the GMC (not members of the tribunal), anxious to provide important information about Jindal’s history. And I am not publicising this info ONLY because (i) as I’ve said before, I don’t want to risk Jindal using it in a possible appeal, claiming unfair bias, (ii) because I have had discussions with journalists and agreed to keep back a lot of info for them to publish/broadcast at the end of the hearing. And believe me, there’s plenty to tell!

**Scratching my head, because whilst I'm not entirely clear what he meant by deciding ’not to explore that area to any significant extent’ (lack of full disclosure to the tribunal?), it was the GGeneral Medical Council (GMC)ppointed case examiners who sent Jindal to FtP, and unless I’ve spent the last 10 years in an alternate universe, I’m the good guy here, committed to advising and publicising the risks of refractive surgery, helping damaged patients - no matter which provider, whilst also campaigning for government regulation of this shockingly corrupt industry!

***In a criminal trial, given the chance, I would be calling for a mistrial, because so much evidence has been kept from the tribunal, and important witnesses not called, either by the GMC or Jindal’s legal team!

More to come on this soon...

In the meantime, I will not be responding to Liz Jenkin’s most recent email : 'At the present time the tribunal have retired to consider their decision on the facts stage of the process. I note from your email of Sunday 5 June 2022 that you are intending to make a formal written complaint to the GMC about the instructed expert regardless of the outcome of the case. Whilst I am not able to meet you in person I would invite you to include within that complaint any other matters you feel to be of concern so that I can ensure they are dealt with in line with our published complaints policy.’

As I had previously told her after she cancelled our meeting, she can read my concerns online like everyone else, because any written complaints will be made AFTER the decision on Jindal’s fitness to practise is handed down! And they won’t just be about the entirely inappropriately appointed medical expert Kim Hakin!

I repeat: the GMC is not fit for purpose

Another 24 hrs in Manchester waiting for the MPTS tribunal decision about Dr Prashant Jindal’s fitness to practise to be handed down, now tomorrow.

Let’s hope it’ll be worth the wait, because I don’t know who’s more anxious about the result - me, Jindal, or AccuVision owner Daryus Panthakey

Again kicking my heels in Manchester, waiting for the MPTS panel to resume public session tomorrow, I thought I’d use this time not only to provide you with some more related info, but to introduce you to Dr Prashant Jindal, self proclaimed parenting expert and ‘Author of the Amazon No.1 Bestseller One Minute Super Dad’ (Twitter @OneMinuteMagics) - legend in his own lunchtime springs to mind

(His ‘best seller’ directly related to my evidence that I can’t yet tell you about for some unexplained reason!)

Video courtesy of ‘The Chrissy B Show’ channel - make sure sound is on, no fun without!



Meanwhile, after refusing to meet with me last week, Ccd to CEO Charlie Massey, I sent Liz Jenkins further correspondence criticising the General Medical Council (GMC)’s shambolic handling of this case:
‘This hearing has been a farce, and I can but hope that the panel are as diligent as the case examiners were, and able to see through Jindal’s smoke and mirrors.

It should also be noted that it was entirely thanks to my request for a Rule 12 review that Px A [Sandy Miller] was even included after his case was previously closed, whilst two other similar complaints against Jindal were unfortunately not (Matthew P—— and Helen Y——).

And yet you appeared surprised when I told you on Wednesday that I consider the GMC not fit for purpose!’

Helen and Matthew also made complaints to the GMC about Dr Prashant Jindal’s name being on their AccuVision operating sheets, adamant that he did not perform their surgery.

Both cases closed without action, but reopened in 2020 when I similarly requested a review under Rule 12, the main reason the FtP hearing was delayed until 2022.

Closed again, yet had they been included in the allegations, then the weight of evidence against Jindal would have been impossible for anyone to doubt, as their evidence and statements reflected much of what was provided by Sandy and Greg.

The system is beyond broken - it stinks!

Expected back in session today, the panel has amended their time frame twice today - which is hopefully a good sign that they’re going to make the right decision about Jindal’s fitness to practise

Brief details from the MPTS hearing last week

For the most part, Dr Prashant Jindal’s evidence was fantastical, complete nonsense!

He tried to blind the MPTS panel with science (no pun intended), attempting to impress with incredible self claimed expertise in performing laser eye surgery, said he doesn't talk to patients because he’s handling a heavy microkeratome and needs absolute concentration to cut the Lasik flap, so leaves it to his assistant to talk.

He went on his knees to show that because he is positioned behind the patient, he has to lean around the laser machine to fit the speculum (scapular as Mr Rigby called it).

Apart from the fact that's untrue, as any laser patient knows, it was then pointed out that neither Patient A (Sandy Miller) nor Patient B (Greg Brady) had Lasik and no microkeratome used - oops Dr Jindal!*

Because there was no refractive expert instructed at any time for this case, complaints about this made to the General Medical Council (GMC) in 2019, there was no-one to dispute his lies, but hopefully at least one panel member, Mr Gulzar Mufti, will see through his lies, because having been a Consultant Surgeon himself, he knows that even a heart surgeon will chat to colleagues whilst operating (if not the unconscious patient).

If we’re lucky, the panel will be as diligent as the case examiners who finally referred Jindal to a FtP hearing (questioning and requesting info so many times), and that once in camera, they might then have thought to look at one of the many laser surgery videos on YouTube, that clearly show the positions of the doctor and patient, as well as the machinery involved, contradicting every lie Jindal told them!

The GMC appointed medical expert, Kim Hakin, was inappropriate, not a refractive surgeon, and he should not have accepted instructions to report on the case, no matter how much he was paid to do it!


mlas.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Kim-Hakin.pdf

And from what I’ve been told (his evidence rescheduled to be heard before mine), he was unable to answer many of the questions put to him by the panel. He apparently talked about how things were 30 years ago, and ‘grandfather rights’, not knowing if laser surgeons nowadays need specialist training or a certificate.

And though for opposite reasons, at one point Jindal echoed what I told the GMC years ago after they’d sent me the expert’s bio (not his identity), that Hakin didn’t know what he was talking about as he’s not a refractive surgeon.

But the fault lies with the GMC, who should not have instructed him!

Following my complaint, 11 Sept 2019, GMC to me:
‘As a result we have also sought to instruct a refractive eye surgery expert to be able to provide a further report on the clinical aspects of the case. Thankfully one has advised that they will be able to help albeit not for some weeks yet due to work commitments. We will obviously need to wait until the finalised reports have been received but it is anticipated that as they will cover different aspects then they will both exist on the case together, rather than one report superseding the other.’

Someone obviously missed the memo!

Kim Hakin saw no problem with the AccuVision consent form, stating that a ‘non-medically qualified' member of staff could perform ‘application of laser’ (and more), and as one respected ophthalmologist said to me, it was like asking a colorectal surgeon to report on heart surgery!

During the summing up last Tuesday, Jindal blatantly and disrespectfully laughed (albeit soundlessly) when Mr Rigby talked about Greg’s severe limitations due to his damaged sight.

This is the tip of the iceberg, so much more to tell, but let’s wait and see what happens tomorrow.

And it should be noted that Dr Jindal is NOT a Consultant as he has been described in some press reports.

*Microkeratome in use:

I posted late on Tuesday: 'Meanwhile, I have a meeting with GMC legal team Assistant Director Liz Jenkins tomorrow afternoon, facilitated by CEO Charlie Massey, who kept his word following our meeting last month!'

Presumably after reading my post, Liz emailed me early on Wednesday morning:

'Dear Sasha

In readiness for our meeting today I asked for a summary of the case and events at the tribunal from my team. In light of that I have taken the view that it would be inappropriate for me to meet you today to discuss matters arising. This is because the case is not one that I am yet fully familiar with and also because of the fact that you remain a witness in an ongoing matter (notwithstanding that you have now given your evidence).

I understand that you have made a previous complaint to the GMC and that has been dealt with. It also appears, however, that the tribunal hearing is likely to prompt further concerns and I am not in a position to help you with those at the moment because they relate to live proceedings. I therefore suggest that you contact us in writing to set out your complaints and a formal response will be prepared. If after that a face to face meeting is required one will be set up.

I am sorry because I know that you will be frustrated by this news but it is right that I have chance to consider your complaints about the GMC and that wouldn’t be possible in a meeting today.

Kind regards.
Liz
Elizabeth Jenkins
Assistant Director, Legal Team
GMC Fitness to Practise’

Unread, I hadn't yet responded to the email, so Liz called me...

I quickly skimmed the message, and said I'd known she was trying to worm her way out of our in person meeting when she called me on Tuesday, so wasn’t in the least bit surprised.

I pointed out that it was only then that I'd told her the General Medical Council (GMC)handling of AccuVision - The Eye Clinic surgeon Prashant Jindal FtP hearing was an added concern to my list, but I'd be happy to put that aside for the time being, and stick to discussing my main concerns, including lack of action taken against refractive surgeons, and entirely inappropriate medical experts appointed to cases - that somehow managed to even get as far as case examiners, before being closed thanks to said experts who don’t have a clue what they’re talking about!*

There was more said that I can't share at this point (but will later), told her I had nothing else to say, and politely ended the call.

Later that afternoon Liz wrote:

'Dear Sasha

I wanted to confirm the following matters with you following on from our call earlier:

I have asked for sight of previous correspondence raising concerns about the GMC’s instruction of the expert in this or any other case. If I consider that anything has not been answered satisfactorily then I will respond to you directly.
In terms of the point about complaints being progressed through Fitness to Practise I have flagged your concern with colleagues in the wider GMC.

I reiterate my offer to consider any complaints you would like to raise in writing.

Many thanks

Liz’

Yesterday I replied:

'Hi Liz

With all due respect, I'm done with writing, and unless you are prepared to meet with me because I consider a face to face meeting is required, then I have nothing more to say to you.

As for responding directly to me after seeing my previous correspondence, this is about what I consider satisfactory, not you.

I will be back in Manchester next week, and once the hearing concludes, I intend to share all evidence and documents I have held back, re this case and the GMC, both on my sites and with any interested press/media journalists. You can of course then read more of my complaints along with everyone else.

I tried to do this amicably, but after eleven years of fighting what I consider to be a rigged system, I should have known better.

Best wishes
Sasha Rodoy | My Beautiful Eyes Foundation’

This morning I discovered enlightening forgotten correspondence from the GMC, directly related to this hearing, sent to me in 2019, and considering it a matter of importance, I have forwarded it to both Liz and Charlie Massey - for all the good it will do, but at least it's on record! And I promise you will get to read it at some point after the hearing concludes.

Meanwhile, an email from the MPTS advising that the tribunal will not be be back in public session until Tuesday lunchtime, not Monday. Though of course that could be further extended if they haven't reached a decision by then.

*Dr Kim Hakin for Jindal’s hearing a case in point - and I’ll try to post more about this before Tuesday!

Don’t be fooled, that’s a forced smile for the photo



I have frequently voiced my frustration with the GMC and accused the organisation of being not fit for purpose!

Sadly I stand by my opinion even more so after the events of this hearing, immensely disappointed with not only the way the case was put together by the GMC legal team, but also how poorly it has been presented by the barrister Terence Rigby, who seems to have little interest in winning.

Mentioned countless times, he has been unable to come close to pronouncing AccuVision owner Daryus Panthakey’s surname correctly even once!

Last night I posted that we might expect a surprise in store today, my optimism relating to serious information concerning Dr Prashant Jindal’s previous employment, highly relevant to the allegations of his dishonesty currently being considered by the #MPTS panel.

The hard copy documented information was provided to the GMC approximately three to four years ago, yet not once referred to throughout this hearing.

Yesterday we struggled to bring this to the attention of the GMC legal team, and after eventually succeeding, fully expected it to be introduced by Mr Rigby when the hearing reconvened this morning.

Assuming that the matter had been discussed by the two barristers during the hour’s delay before proceedings recommenced, we were left stunned when it was not addressed.

During a break, unable to track down the the GMC lawyer, I sent an email saying that if they didn’t engage with me then I wasn’t prepared to play by their rules any longer, as I have done so far, anxious not to jeopardise the hearing that took so much time and effort by so many people to get to this stage.

The lawyer then came dashing out to talk to me, and I told her how angry I was that so much damning evidence re Jindal had been left out of the proceedings, that I considered Terence Rigby incompetent, unnecessarily arrogant, and that he looked totally uninterested in the hearing.

She told me that I should remember the ‘warning’ I’d had from the tribunal panel on Friday, and when I asked which warning she was referring to, she told me the one not to talk publicly about my own evidence until the case is over.

I pointed out that it wasn’t my evidence we were discussing, and that I was putting the GMC on notice that I reserved the right to publish the information they’d withheld from the tribunal on my sites.

I did of course say more…

It should also be noted that when I met with Mr Rigby last Friday morning before giving evidence, I asked if another VERY important matter would be brought to the attention of the panel, and he incredibly assured me that it would not!

And all witnesses were warned to answer ONLY the questions we were asked, and not to add extra information, but both Patient B’s partner (Catherine Froud) and I had ignored this, and had independently of one another made sure the information being deliberately excluded was mentioned, and therefore had to be addressed by all parties!

When we reconvened shortly after my head to head with the General Medical Council (GMC) solicitor this morning, Jindal’s barrister, Andrew Colman, told the panel that he’d been advised that information might be posted online, that the panel ‘should not be influenced by’.

However, yet again, and only to avoid any chance that my posts might be used as an excuse to appeal a possible decision of sanctions on Jindal’s fitness to practise, I have voluntarily made the decision not to publish any information that was not included in the hearing until after its conclusion.

But then the gloves are off!

Now in camera (like a jury) the panel are expected to hand down their decision on Monday, and I can but pray that the limited information they were given, was sufficient for them to see through Jindal’s lies and make the right call.

In the interim, I’ll do my best to tell you as much as I can about the hearing when I’m eventually back home, with time to go through my notes.

Meanwhile, I have a meeting with GMC legal team Assistant Director Liz Jenkins tomorrow afternoon, facilitated by CEO Charlie Massey, who kept his word following our meeting last month!

Arrived at my Manchester hotel on Sunday to find popcorn in the room - read my previous post to understand why I laughed!



AccuVision surgeon Dr Prashant Jindal (photo circa 2018) gave evidence all day, tied in knots by counsel Mr Terence Rigby, instructed by the General Medical Council (GMC)!

His lies were breathtaking, but I believe there might be a surprise in store for everyone tomorrow

Meanwhile, too tired to write anything more about today, but will endeavour to do so later this week.

Dr Prashant Jindal’s Fitness to Practise hearing continues

Yesterday afternoon I gave evidence against Dr Prashant Jindal at his General Medical Council (GMC) Fitness to Practise hearing in the Manchester MPTS centre



Called as a witness, this is the reason I have previously been unable to make any personal comment, or sit in on the hearing until now.

The MPTS listing was originally scheduled for 2020, but delayed for a number of reasons (that I am still unable to share publicly), and incredibly frustrating for me to keep quiet about this for more than two years!

Now discharged, I am able to fully report on the hearing, but have been advised by the tribunal panel that I must not comment on my own evidence - not really clear why, as anyone else who was present can do so!

However, having worked for nine years to expose the (alleged) goings on at #AccuVision!

The hearing continues on Monday, when Dr Jindal is expected to begin giving evidence.

Note to self: don't forget the popcorn!