Negligence and Human Rights Act Claims

Suresh was a consultant anesthetist with a previously unblemished professional record.

In March 2018, police received an allegation that a teenage girl had been sexually assaulted following a dental procedure at which Suresh had served as the anesthetist. Suresh voluntarily attended a police interview, denied the allegation, and was released under investigation. The police subsequently notified the General Medical Council (GMC), which

opened a fitness-to-practice investigation. On May 2, 2018, the GMC emailed Suresh notifying him that an investigation had been opened and that his case would be referred to an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT). The GMC's materials acknowledged that the process could be stressful and included information about a confidential Doctors Support Service. Later that afternoon, Suresh left his home and died by suicide. (Suresh v. General Medical Council, [2026] EWCA Civ 955))

Suresh's family sued the GMC, alleging that its acts and omissions caused or contributed to his death. They asserted negligence and Human Rights Act claims, contending that the GMC should have recognized the foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury or suicide and taken additional precautions before communicating the investigation. The central question was whether the GMC owed Suresh a duty of care when carrying out its statutory fitness-to-practice investigation and communicating the investigation to him.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments and emphasized that the GMC's statutory framework is critical. Under the Medical Act (1983), the GMC's overarching objective is to protect the public, including protecting public health and safety, maintaining public confidence in the medical profession, and maintaining professional standards. The Court held that imposing even a narrower duty requiring the GMC to protect a doctor's welfare in the manner in which an investigation is communicated would create a potential conflict between the GMC's statutory responsibility to investigate promptly and the individual interests of the doctor being investigated. Existing authorities did not support imposing such a duty on a regulator toward the
person who was the subject of its investigation.

The Court also rejected the argument that the GMC had created a source of danger. The GMC was carrying out actions required by statute and the applicable rules when it investigated the allegation and notified Suresh. The Court found that the May letter was not arguably inappropriate or insensitive. It likewise rejected the claimed “special circumstances” registration with the GMC did not itself create the necessary legal
proximity, the GMC was not Suresh's employer, and it had no legal obligation to promote his welfare.

Appeal dismissed.

This is a free article from the July/August 2026 edition of Professional Licensing Report (PLR). Subscribe to Professional Licensing Report (PLR) to access the full edition today.