Dr Prashant Jindal | MPTS Fitness to Practise hearing

Part 3 (of I don't know how many)

Today should have been a day for celebration, with Greg Brady and Sandy Miller (and others illegally operated on by AccuVision's father and son team) finally getting some justice; instead a vile hate campaign, orchestrated by clinic owner Daryus Panthakey, managed to derail the hearing at this very late stage in the proceedings, with the Tribunal ludicrously blaming me!*



Throughout the MPTS hearing, I was as transparent as I was allowed to be in my published accounts, abiding by the Tribunal's directions that, though free to report on the content, I must not discuss my own evidence.

At no point have I done otherwise, and whilst I’m sure all involved (bar the victims) would leap on any excuse to exclude me from the hearing when it's relisted with a new panel, I will continue not to discuss my evidence, nor publish vital information about Jindal that was not submitted in evidence by the GMC legal team (but should have been!)

Meanwhile, most information in this post, if not referred to previously in Part 2, can be read in Annex B and Annex C below.

With reference to the submissions in Annex B, noted 1-5 in Part 2:

1. I sat through the entire hearing quietly, not even exhibiting a facial response when I was slated by Colman, though at that point I had no idea what he was actually referring to. Therefore, it would be good to know what problem I 'caused in the hearing’!

2. More details in Annex C, point 11.
Whilst I'm not sure that Tribunal member Dr Laura Florence's note is quite accurate, I won't swear to it, but to the best of my recollection there are only two or three cubicles in the Ladies toilet she referred to, with little space in front of two washbasins, and the ‘member of the press’ was in front of the one nearest the door when I walked in.

It is more likely that I made my comment whilst Dr Florence was still in her cubicle, and that’s when the ‘lady from the press’ shushed me, but either way, as I was not addressing her, she had no idea what I was referring to.

And I make no apologies for saying I was ‘f*cking angry’, because that's my constant emotion concerning the refractive surgery industry!

Goodness knows what I might have said that would have been weaponised against me had I not been warned that someone was in one of the cubicles! So perhaps separate toilets should be allocated for the tribunal and members of the public in future.

And I would suggest that the legal advisor who drafted the two Annex documents (with a perceived COI yet to be told) should google the definition of ‘interaction’, because I had NO interaction with any Tribunal member!

3. Although I wrote nothing that could prejudice the case, I accept that perhaps I should not have tagged Gulzar Mufti on LinkedIn, but it's an automatic habit to tag anyone I mention in posts/tweets. (LI screenshot in comments under Part 2).

However, that post was dated 6 June, and I question why LinkedIn belatedly emailed Gulzar Mufti on 8 June, as a tagging alert is normally sent within the hour, if not minutes, and his contemporaneous note appears to have been recorded on 9 June, coinciding with Dr Florence’s contemporaneous note!

It should also be considered that Dr Prashant Jindal’s attempt to ‘Connect' with me on LIinkedIn was dismissed by his counsel, Andrew Colman, with the unbelievable and belated excuse that his client's account had been hacked! (See 10 July post)

Were the Tribunal also given this information I wonder?

4. More details in Annex C, point 12 .
Being somewhat OCD about where I sit, eating breakfast in the hotel restaurant every morning throughout the hearing, 30 May-10 June (dinner too some evenings, a change from McDonalds fish burger & fries), I always sat at the same table, other than on one occasion when the conservatory area was closed.

So Dr Florence must have been facing the back of the winged chair I sat in, working on my iPad or reading my Kindle during meals, with no interest in observing other guests. And if she too ate regularly in the restaurant then she must surely have seen me there on other occasions, given that she was so interested in my behaviour, eavesdropping on my private conversations!

The breakfast staff had got to know me, even bringing my preferred coffee over without me needing to order, and as part of my work, I frequently hand out business cards to people, especially those wearing glasses, which I did to many of the hotel staff during my stay.

And her claim that I was talking ‘loudly’ is not only a lie, not least because she states that she was sitting approximately two metres away, close enough to listen in on the quietest of conversations, but deliberately worded to insinuate that I was speaking for her benefit. Regardless of which, it should be noted that I made no reference to the hearing itself.

And I would like to point out that you can't 'make eye contact' with someone who isn’t looking at you!

On 9 June, recovering from Covid the previous week, I was not feeling well enough to go out and about, and whilst waiting for a journalist who was coming to interview me, bored with my hotel room, I was killing time looking around the hotel, a stunning historic building, with lots of impressively tiled corridors and interesting areas to explore.

The inference that I was purposely standing EIGHT metres away from Dr Florence looking at photos, with intent to threaten or intimidate her with my presence is outrageous!!

I repeat, I did not see this woman at any time in the hotel during my stay.

And I hate to disappoint Dr Florence, but not only was I completely oblivious to the fact that she was staying in the same hotel, I paid very little attention to her at all during the hearing, and there was nothing about her that I would have recognised outside the MPTS centre.

The fact that these non events were deemed important enough for the legal advisor to take contemporaneous notes leads me to suspect that they were told to watch me (spying and stalking in my opinion), a pathetic excuse to call for recusal on 16 September.

And if Dr Florence was so affected by my presence, then why didn't she recuse herself and leave the others to it?

5. I had not previously disrupted proceeding, so what was there to suggest I would change my behaviour?

From Annex B:





I made no such attempts at all, and when Colman mentioned me on 10 June (See 17 June post), I thought he was just exaggerating or overplaying my having tagged Gulzar Mufti on LinkedIn. Because, contrary to what has been claimed (Annex C, point 11), at no time during the hearing were any specific details mentioned in relation to these ridiculous accusations, and the first time I heard of them was last Saturday!

Probably for the best, because had these been itemised on 10 June by Colman, then I'd have struggled to stay quiet, though I believe these accusations should have been mentioned in public session, with the right of reply afforded!

It should also be noted, after Colman's dig at me, Matthew Fiander, Tribunal chair, assured him that nothing outside the hearing would influence their decision!

So what - or who - happened to change their minds?

*Annex C, point 34.



In my opinion this shows that the Tribunal most definitely intended to deliver a ‘guilty' decision, otherwise there was no reason to recuse itself, as a 'not guilty' would have had Jindal sending them champagne and flowers! Whereas, a guilty verdict would - as mentioned in Part 2 - have opened flood gates for an onslaught from Jindal supporters screaming racism, and I will be publshing evidence that AccuVision orchestrated their hate campaign for this very purpose.

I believe the tribunal were aware of this, presumably advised by the GMC, who’ve been monitoring this sickening campaign, under attack alongside me and the BBC.

One thing I'm certain of, it wasn’t me the Tribunal were concerned about - it was that Daryus Panthakey’s campaign, spearheaded by someone using a fake profile, falsely claiming to be both a journalist and solicitor, has attracted support from Asian doctors in the UK who have no idea that they’re being played, the majority believing the vile claims without question!

It should be noted that it was entirely thanks to my endeavours that this hearing made it to a FtP hearing, and I would not intentionally do ANYTHING to jeopardise the outcome!

Next shocking chapter coming very soon…

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, in fact it stinks to high heaven

I should have guessed the reason I was excluded from the public sessions on Friday and Saturday - because the 'legal matter' was me!

Given the weight of evidence presented during the May/June hearing, I really believed it probable that the Tribunal would find Jindal ‘guilty’ (ie allegations proven), and so it seems did his counsel, Andrew Colman, desperate to get rid of the panel, with me as scapegoat!!



However, it was apparently the Tribunal members themselves who asked to be recused, and I can only assume this was because they wanted to avoid being caught up in the sh*t show that would follow a 'guilty' decision, thanks to an incredible and hideous attack orchestrated by AccuVision owner Daryus Panthakey over the past few months, accusing the General Medical Council (GMC), BBC, and me, of racism and more: posting on numerous websites and fake social media accounts, gaining traction with respected Asian doctors they've targeted who have actually fallen for this sh*t, because of the GMC's reputation for pursuing ethnic minorities in disciplinary matters.

The accusations against me have been particularly vile, and I have a legal team currently dealing with this.

The GMC totally aware of what’s been going on, and I understand they admitted that they know it's come from Dr Prashant Jindal's camp, but so far have done nothing to address this insanity (that I am aware of), and nor has the BBC, or their journalist, Nicola Dowling, who, like me, has been pilloried by these sickos!

I'll be publishing examples at some point in this thread.

Details from Annex B (red annotations mine)



The General Medical Council (GMC) totally aware of what’s been going on, and I understand they admitted that they know it's come from Dr Prashant Jindal's camp, but so far have done nothing to address this insanity (that I am aware of), and nor has the BBC, or their journalist, who, like me, has been pilloried by these sickos!

I'll be publishing examples at some point in this thread.

Thiis from Annex C:

'Background regarding decision to recuse

7. Shortly after the Tribunal retired to deliberate on the facts, a GMC witness, Sasha Rodoy, began a series of interactions with Tribunal members. On each occasion the Legal Assessor recorded a contemporaneous note.

8. On 10 June 2022, the Tribunal returned to public session, relayed Ms Rodoy’s interventions to the parties and invited initial submissions. [Odd, I must have been asleep!]*

9. On recommencing in camera for deliberations on 16 September 2022, having reflected further, the Tribunal was concerned about the possibility of subconscious influence from Ms Rodoy’s interventions and the impact of that on the Tribunal’s decision making. The Tribunal invited the representatives for their submissions regarding the appropriateness of the Tribunal recusing itself.’

Part 3 of this thread will critique and discredit the Tribunal’s claim that I, 'began a series of three interactions with Tribunal members', which is total bullsh*t, no other words for it!

And whilst I’ve only posted excerpts for the moment, I will publish the entire determination from the Tribunal in due course.

*Read 17 June post for verbatim account of what was said on 10 June, not quite as claimed by MPTS in Point 8 above!

And, posted on 6 June, this is a screenshot of my LinkedIn post mentioning Gulzar Mufti.

Scheduled to hand down their decision in public session on 22 September, the MPTS tribunal reconvened in camera on Friday and Saturday, presumably to finish writing up extensive notes to explain their decision on Dr Prashant Jindal’s fitness to practise

So it came as a huge surprise when I (Sasha Rodoy) received this email on Friday morning (edited to include salient points only):

'On 16 Sep 2022, at 10:50, MPTS Press Office <pressoffice@mpts-uk.org> wrote:

Good morning,

We have just been advised that the tribunal hearing the case of Dr Jindal will reconvene in public session at 12pm today to hear submissions from parties on a legal matter that has arisen. Given the short notice there is the option for you to dial in remotely.

To confirm your observation of the hearing, please complete the attached Terms of Access form…

We must also ask for proof of your name and UK address...

Once we have received this information, arrangements will be made for a link to be sent to you to join the hearing via Microsoft Teams.’

Having belatedly seen the message at 11:50, I panicked that I wouldn’t get the docs to them in time, so I called the MPTS Communications Officer, who told me not to worry, that I'd still be able to sign in even if I was late.

12:07 - my docs sent, but no Teams link provided, so I called again, and was told that the tribunal members were running late, assured that the link was on its way to me.

12:35 - no link, so I called again. The Press Officer was unavailable, but the person I spoke with relayed her message that I'd receive an email or phone call shortly!

14:00 - still no link, and I naively wondered if perhaps they’d been unable to get all parties together at such short notice, hence the delay.

16:50 - with my emails/phone calls still going unanswered, being on their list for updates, another person with a vested interest* called the MPTS Press Officer, to ask why he hadn’t been invited to attend the public session, and was advised that it had been held at 12:30, lasting just under 30 minutes!

They refused to tell him what the legal matter was (even though discussed in public session), but that the panel hadn’t yet made a decision, and if they did so it would be handed down in a brief public session the next day (Saturday), and if so, he would be sent a Teams link to attend remotely.

Now Saturday morning, I called the press office complaining that I hadn't received the Teams link, and was told that the General Medical Council (GMC) legal team should have called me to explain that I had been excluded from the public sessions, allegedly because I might be recalled as a witness.

'Curiouser and curiouser, cried Alice...'

MUCH more to come, with information that is going to leave you shaking your heads in disbelief (and disgust), explaining why I feel like I've fallen down the rabbit hole!!

*Operated on by AccuVision owner Daryus Panthakey in 2006, the victim's complaint dismissed by General Medical Council in 2013. See related posts starting 23 February 2014: www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...-accuvision?start=10

Monday 11 July, further response from General Medical Council legal



'The Tribunal will reconvene on 16th September. I can also confirm that a further date of 17th September has been added. The MPTS have confirmed that barristers are not required to attend on 16th & 17th September as the Tribunal will be in camera. It is intended that the determination on facts will be handed down in public session on 22nd September.'

‘In respect of the Linkedin connection request you advised you received from Dr Jindal, Dr Jindal’s legal representative has confirmed that this was not a deliberate action. He stated:
I have written to my client to remind him of his obligations in respect of witnesses. He is adamant that this approach did not originate with him. One possible explanation is that his account was hacked: he has therefore changed his password and put a message on his LinkedIn to say that the account was hacked.*

We have carefully considered, with counsel, the information you provided to us, together with Dr Jindal’s representatives comments. Given your evidence has concluded, & there has been no actual communication between Dr Jindal & yourself, we will not be raising the Linkedin connection request with the Tribunal. However, should any contact be made by Dr Jindal please inform me of this & we will consider it accordingly.’

*Whilst I doubt that even his own legal representative believed Jindal’s risible story that his account was hacked (the hacker randomly inviting me to connect 🤣) I accept the GMC’s reason not to raise this with the Tribunal.

However, since that amusing incident, Jindal has excelled himself, party to major defamation of various organisations and people directly involved in his FtP hearing, with some information that can only have been provided to the 'publisher’ by #AccuVision owner #daryuspanthakey & #drprashantjindal himself.

Much directed at the GMC, with ludicrous & laughable lies, but as it’s a serious case of defamation, none involved can afford to ignore this.

I have sent the info to GMC, who, on this occasion, I believe have no option but to share with the Tribunal, as the source(s) must be considered in relation to Jindal's integrity (albeit an oxymoron).

Because of the seriousness of the matter, the person fronting the fantastical nonsense facing legal repercussions, it is probable I won’t publish further details until the MPTS panel hand down their decision.

Meantime, Jindal appears to believe he really is a celebrity, having upgraded his LinkedIn a/c to Premium, and marked his social media accounts as: ’Official account of…' (but not updating his photos)



He also recently changed his Twitter a/c name to @PrashantJindall (2 Ls), previously @OneMinuteMagics and fllled with self promotion of his unheard of ’Best seller' - that might have a chance of becoming such after 22 September!

Until Greg Brady's desperate situation was publicised in 2018 not one of the many UK consultant ophthalmologists/refractive surgeons I personally know had ever heard of Prashant Jindal!

I hadn’t intended to post anything more about Dr Prashant Jindal and AccuVision Laser Eye Clinic until the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service panel hand down their decision, expected on 22 September. However, the actions of those swimming in the murky underbelly of the refractive surgery industry cannot be predicted, so here we are again, sooner than planned

I thought I was hallucinating when I read Dr Prashant Jindal's LinkedIn request to connect with me on 27 June, not least because I am a witness for the General Medical Council at his FtP hearing, and he should not be trying to contact me in any way!



Given the time of evening his request was sent, perhaps Jindal was 'in his cups’, but whatever his reason, I did not respond, and the next day forwarded his email to the GMC legal team, who assured me by return that Mr Rigby would be informed and instructed, 'to raise it at the hearing when it reconvenes in September’.

A few days later Jindal posted his ludicrous message on LinkedIn - claiming he’d been hacked!

This is absolute and utter nonsense, but even if there were a grain of truth in his claim, he can of course provide his LI correspondence concerning the alleged hacking to the MPTS.

To be continued, with more to tell before September...

29 June: Wednesday morning, Zoom meeting with John McDonnell, primarily for me to update him on Prashant Jindal's Fitness to Practise hearing, and to discuss the evidence he intends to present to parliament to underline the fact that the General Medical Council (GMC) is unarguably unfit for purpose



This will not happen until after the MPTS tribunal hand down their decision - regardless of what it is, because if the allegations are found proven against Jindal, this will be entirely thanks to due diligence exercised by the panel, and by two wonderful unknown case examiners who referred Jindal to his FtP hearing in 2020, after VERY lengthy consideration!

John McDonnell has been aware of AccuVision owner Daryus Panthakey's activities for almost as long as I have (since January 2013), and in relation to information I provided in 2017, as Shadow Chancellor, he personally contacted the Metropolitan Police Commissioner (Cressida Dick) to vouch for me and the investigative journalist I've worked with since 2014, searching online and elsewhere for evidence to expose this scandal within a scandal.

Unfortunately, as with the GMC, the related Met police investigation was another fiasco, and the full story will be published later this year - much of it documented in email correspondence with the useless DCI overseeing the farce, who I once told that if I had to rely on her team to save my life, then I might as well pull the trigger myself!

When the Crown Prosecution Service dismissed the case due to lack of evidence (in abundance, but police simply couldn’t be bothered to pursue), my subsequent official complaint to the IOPC was led by a lower ranking officer from the DCI's same Hammersmith police station, and amazingly she was promoted soon after.

Because of promises made to journalists, I've omitted a few details from this post, but I also promise you readers, the truth will out, so please be patient!
#blindedonthehighstreet #stormsasha

Until the MPTS panel hand down their decision on Dr Prashant Jindal’s fitness to practise, I am self imposing a limit on what I publish until after 22 September, partly to avoid yet another attack from his counsel (Andrew Colman), eager to claim ‘foul play’ given any opportunity, and also, as I previously posted, because of my discussions with selected press and media journalists, their voices louder than mine

In the meantime, the question oft asked of me is why would Prashant Jindal claim responsibility for surgery that has currently left Greg Brady as good as blind when he professes to be an amazing ‘celebrity surgeon’?

The answer is simple...

Better to be sued (the insurers pay out) than to be erased from the GMC register (struck off), which would have happened by now had Jindal ‘fessed up and admitted he didn’t do it, instead of claiming responsibility for operations that were in fact (allegedly) performed by father and son team, Daryus and Johann Panthakey.

Somewhat ironic perhaps, that after buying a new Lexus in 2021 Jindal criticised the company on Twitter for their after sales service! (Tweet recently removed and his Twitter a/c pared down since the hearing began.)

When the self proclaimed ’Celebrity surgeon’ Prashant Jindal was giving evidence earlier this month (aka lying through his teeth), the tribunal were trying to establish if the grey haired person present in the operating room during Sandy Miller’s surgery was AccuVision - The Eye Clinic owner Daryus Panthakey, and when they asked Jindal if he’d ever had grey hair, he admitted to dying his hair for many years - I don't miss much, having coincidentally spotted his grey roots just ten minutes earlier.

So no, ’twas not him!

Excusing the fact that he didn’t remember Greg Brady, on a roll, believing the tribunal were lapping up his nonsense (I’m quietly confident they’re smarter than that), he told an anecdote about a time he claimed he hadn’t known who he’d operated on the previous day, until his assistant pointed out that the patient was a well known cricketer.

Hard to swallow that story as Jindal is an avid cricket fan, a real groupie, with selfies on his social media sites taken with a number of cricketers, suggesting that he’s operated on them all.

Photo with Andy Flower a case in point.





To be cont'd...

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