TOPIC: AccuVision

I only noticed this bizarre message today, sent to my Facebook messenger last week



It is indeed non-medically qualified businessman Daryus Panthakey, and I'm guessing a very recent photo, given his stressed expression and loss of weight.

Entirely understandable with what's going on in The World of Accuvision right now, details to be publicised later in 2019.

This older photo of Daryus Panthakey shows a happier man, excuding confidence, believing that he, and his non-medically qualified team, would continue to profit from their activities without being bothered by silly rules, like needing to be a bona fide GMC registered doctor to perform eye surgery!



A huge thank you to 'Facebook User', and if you have any photos of Johann and Kareena Panthakey (similarly invisible on the world wide web) we'd love to see them!

No idea why as I’m still waiting for Twitter to tell me!

But I do know who - non medically qualified Accuvision owner Daryus Panthakey who illegally operated on me in 2006!

If you read my last post you’ll see that he threatened to serve me with High Court proceedings in September and when I said go for it he backed off!

But he’s bothered enough to complain to Twitter!

Draw your own conclusions ????

Accuvision owner Daryus Panthakey desperate to silence me/the truth


My reply...

At around 11.30am on the 27th Sept Sasha phoned Campbell Dye. She told him that I was also on the call, and if there is one lesson I learned early on from Sasha Rodoy it is to record important conversations!

She told Campbell Dye that her client (me) was still waiting to be served with proceedings which I had been told would be by midnight on the 25th Sept. Mr Dye replied that he was waiting for instructions from his client (Daryus Panthakey) and said, “But you’re right, proceedings haven’t been served and I’ll explain why in the email that I send to you."

Sasha asked Mr Dye if he could in the meantime tell us if his client intended to serve proceedings and Mr Dye said, “Claims will not be served on you or Mr Tomlinson.” Eh? Sasha’s not the one being sued!!

Sasha then said to Mr Dye, “Can I just recommend something to you? Firstly, and you can quote me here, you will be unaware but your client has been operating illegally for more than fifteen years, there are investigations ongoing, he has not been entirely honest with you, there are big chunks missing out of the chronological events [you] sent to my client [me]. Now, what I suggest to you is, google your client’s name and see how many photos you can find of him. And that’s why he won’t be serving proceedings! ”.

Mr Dye said "Alright, I hear what you’re saying. Thank you.” (Legalese for - "I know my client is a lying git!”)

Less than an hour later I received this email from Campbell Dye confirming what he had said in the conference call earlier.

'From: "Dye, Campbell J" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: Our Clients: Daryus Panthakey/Accuvision Limited
Date: 27 September 2018 at 12:29:43 BST
To: TOMLIN_, Sasha Rodoy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Dear Mr Tomlinson

Ms Rodoy called this morning to speak to me and you were in attendance on the call.

We wrote to you last week setting out our clients' case against you in defamation. We explained that our clients had issued a Claim Form against you in the High Court and that, when we wrote, it was our clients' intention to serve those proceedings on you before midnight on Tuesday 25 September 2018, the latest time permitted by the Court for service of those proceedings.

You responded promptly to our letter, but in terms which did not provide any proper basis to justify the comments you have made against our clients. Our clients remain firm in their view that they have been defamed and that your conduct constitutes harassment.

However, our client has concluded that it would not be the best use of its time or proportionate to continue those legal proceedings against you at this time and the Claim Form has not been, and will not be, served on you.

Our clients' rights remain fully reserved in relation to your past conduct (to the extent that action is not barred by the limitation period) and any future conduct. Our clients will be monitoring what you say and write about them and you should not assume that our clients will allow any future harassment and/or defamation to pass unchecked.

Yours sincerely

Campbell Dye
Partner
Commercial Dispute Resolution
DAC Beachcroft LLP'

Why, considering that I have been posting my allegations online for more than 4 years, did it take Daryus Panthakey this long to initiate legal action? And why has he decided not to follow through with his legal threat after making such a fuss?

Read Campbell Dye’s 19th Sept letter “NOT FOR PUBLICATION” again! ????????????????

I am not going to stop until Daryus Panthakey and all those who've ever been involved in his illegal activities are brought to justice. My resolve is even stronger after seeing the horrific damage that Accuvision have inflicted upon Greg Brady.

'From: Dye, Campbell J
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018, 18:14
Subject: RE: Your ref: CXD/ACC517

Dear Mr Tomlinson

Thank you for your email of 19 September on which I now have my client's full instructions.

You have asked me to copy Ms Rodoy on all future communications with you. It is my understanding that Ms Rodoy is not a qualified and practising solicitor or barrister. If my understanding is correct, would you please let me know immediately since, in those circumstances, I must (as a matter of professional conduct) communicate only with Ms Rodoy. If, however, I am correct that Ms Rodoy is not legally qualified, would you please explain what you and she consider to fall within her role (as you describe it) of patient advocate?

The law of defamation and harassment is complex and I, therefore, encourage you again to seek professional legal advice, in addition to the support being provided by Ms Rodoy.

I note, too, that you intend to publish our letter, despite our request that it be kept confidential between the parties, their advisers and the Court (if necessary). You should be aware that any publication by you or any third party (including Ms Rodoy) may constitute further harassment and/or defamation and I must reserve my clients' rights in that regard.

Publication of our correspondence with you may also involve you publishing your personal and/or sensitive personal data. Our clients cannot be held responsible for any such disclosure. In that regard, whilst my clients are content to copy communications to Ms Rodoy if that is your wish, I need to have your formal signed consent for my firm and my clients to send to her information which may constitute personal or sensitive personal data (including information relating to your medical care). I attach a consent form. Unless and until I receive the signed form from you I will not copy Ms Rodoy on any communications.

As to the law of defamation itself, I am not able to advise you for obvious reasons but a claim for libel can succeed where the allegations are untrue or substantially untrue, irrespective of the state of mind of the defendant. However, for the reasons set out in our initial letter, our clients do not consider that you are entitled to continue honestly to hold your opinions or beliefs about our client. The issued claim against you is also for remedies under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 but I note you do not deal with that in your letter.

The question of costs is, of course, a matter for the judge at trial but any legal advisor you go to will be able to explain the basis on which costs will be ordered and it is important that you fully understand the potential consequences of your decisions.

A Claim Form does not have to be served immediately after issue. It has to be served within 4 months and we will be serving the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim on you no later than midnight on Tuesday 25 September.

It is disappointing that you have failed to set out any detailed explanation for your denial of the claim against you. That means that my client will, therefore, proceed with the litigation.

Yours sincerely
Campbell Dye
Partner
Commercial Dispute Resolution
DAC Beachcroft LLP
100 Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1BN'

I waited until midnight on 25 September but no High Court claim was served.????

So I emailed Campbell Dye:



No reply, so Sasha tried.



Then we received an automated message that Cambell Dye would be back in his office the next day.

20 September - I called his bluff! ????

"Dear Mr Dye

I acknowledge receipt of your emailed letter of 19 September 2018.

To the best of my limited legal knowledge, defamation refers to false claims. However, all allegations I have made about your clients, both verbally and electronically, were repeated with my firmly held belief that they are true.

Hence I stand by everything I have said and/or written concerning the illegal activities of your clients, Daryus Panthakey and Accuvision: consequently, I have no intention of issuing apologies, retractions, or to provide an undertaking not to repeat my allegations, or indeed comply with any of the demands listed on page 5 of your letter.

With regard to your client’s (s?) legal costs, that is of course a matter for the Judge to decide when we go to trial.

Furthermore, I would remind you that I am not bound by legal privilege, and I have every intention of publishing your letter.

Please accept this as my substantive response.

Meanwhile, you claim that your client has issued proceedings against me in the High Court, yet my understanding is that when proceedings are issued service immediately follows. I look forward to being corrected if I have been misinformed.

Finally, in her role as patient advocate, Sasha Rodoy, founder of My Beautiful Eyes Foundation, has represented me since 2013, as your clients are aware, and Ms Rodoy will continue to represent me in this respect. Please therefore copy her in on all future communications to me.

Sincerely
Michael Tomlinson"

16 minutes later Mr Dye replied:

????????????????

Still upset with the content of Andrew Ellson’s article in The Times, published 14 July, Accuvision owner Daryus Panthakey’s solicitor questioned Greg Brady’s claim that he spends £170 a month on medication for his eyes

Unless receiving free NHS prescriptions, any damaged patient will appreciate that £170 a month (£39 per week) can be a conservative figure for artifical tears etc... that so many of us will need for the rest of our lives!

And it’s somewhat telling that Accuvision are more concerned with the cost of Greg’s meds while ignoring the state of his eyes!

And nor have they disputed the fact that is a breach of GMC rules for ‘technical (non-medically qualified) staff' to perform ‘application of laser’, as written in their patient consent form.



As for Dr Prashant Jindal, the ophthalmologist who put his name to Greg’s laser eye surgery, I wonder what advice the author of One Minute Super Dad, self proclaimed 'Amazon No.1 Best Seller Book', would have for Greg as a new father?

'Dr Jindal was recently invited for the famous ChrissyB show to share his knowledge in helping fathers and to talk about his Amazon No.1 Best Seller Book: One Minute Super Dad (OMSD)- 99 One Minute Magic Moments you can easily create to raise Amazing Children.'



You’ll note that Dr Jindal’s YouTube video is ‘unlisted’. This followed a complaint from the Chrissy B Show, who removed the original from their own YouTube channel. (See 22 June post for video link.)



More about this here www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind.../8017-bbc-news-press

Another photo of Greg Brady after his NHS operations last month, attempting to repair some of the horrific damage caused by laser eye surgery at Accuvision's London clinic



For argument's sake, if we were to accept Greg's allegation that Dr Prashant Jindal was NOT his operating surgeon, then why would Jindal want to claim responsibility for this tragedy?

Page 51, para 8, from the AccuVision consent form, signed by Greg Brady on 28 December 2016:

And to be entirely clear, no matter that Greg signed this consent form, it is not legal, because only a GMC registered doctor is licensed - and insured - to perform surgery of any kind on a patient.

And I understand that a surgeon who claims to have fully consented a patient with Accuvision's terms is therefore in violation of the GMC Good medical practice guidance.

From the GMC website:

www.gmc-uk.org/…/a-gu…/unregistered-medical-practice

The GMC and other regulatory bodies have been provided with Greg's consent form, which leaves Dr Prashant Jindal between a rock and a hard place: he's damned if he did operate on Greg, and damned if he didn’t!

And the GMC's inevitable forthcoming investigation could lead to Dr Jindal being ‘erased' from the medical register - that’s a real GMC term btw, not a quote from Black Mirror!

According to the reluctantly disclosed info I squeezed out of long term Accuvision optoms earlier this year (Joan Griffin via phone and Vikash Patel online), Drs Prashant Jindal and Panagiotis Takis Kalognomas are the only two GMC registered ophthalmologists currently operating out of Accuvision's three clinics, located in Birmingham, Leeds, and London.
NB: The Bristol clinic listed on their website is for consults only.

Further research discovered that Prashant Jindal has worked alongside Accuvision businessman owner Daryus Panthakey since 2007, and is not on the GMC Specialist Register, while Panagiotis Takis Kalognomas, who is on the Specialist Register, also works at the Hospital of St John & St Elizabeth in London.

After requesting to meet with his operating surgeon in October 2017, told that Dr Jindal was unavailable, Greg and his partner Catherine instead met with optometrist Johann Panthakey (son of Daryus), and ophthalmologist Dr Kalognomas, who didn’t contradict non medically qualified businessman Daryus Panthakey when he incorrectly described himself as a ‘clinician’!

And for all their faults, you won’t find Optimax and Optical Express bosses Russell Ambrose and David Moulsdale hanging around their clinics in operating scrubs, as AccuVision boss Daryus Panthakey has done for nearly two decades!

I mentioned in a previous post that Dr Dan Reinstein also worked alongside Daryus Panthakey (when he first landed on our shores from the US, before adopting his Professor title), as did Dr Simon Levy, who left for reasons he really should have told the GMC - not too late Simon!

And then there’s Dr Brett Halliday, no longer operating as I understand, with a highly lucrative income as a medicolegal expert, currently paid by Optical Express to write reports for their legal defence against claims from damaged patients.

Dr Halliday also worked closely with Daryus Panthakey in previous years, and I met both men on separate occasions in 2013, in regard to another Accuvision damaged patient who claims that Brett Halliday did not operate on him, even though his name is noted on the medical records.

Notice a pattern emerging here...

I did of course record these meetings, and copies will be provided to the GMC et al.

There're a number of doctors, and others in the industry, who can provide valuable info and evidence that will help any investigation, and over the years I've offered many of them the chance to speak to the GMC - and police, but they don't want to stick their heads above the parapet.

Either way, they’ll all be named and shamed eventually...

Meanwhile, if you’re reckless enough to be seriously considering surgery at Accuvision, notice that there are no photos of any surgeons or staff on their website, so I strongly advise that you ask the surgeon - who you must meet before the operation day - to allow you to video him (or her) stating their name and GMC reference number, with a guarantee that s/he’ll be the only one performing your ops.

If they refuse, then get the hell outta there!