A FARTOWN GP has been struck off for malpractice. Disgraced doctor Dev Dutt was labelled ‘deficient’ as he was struck off the medical register by the General Medical Council’s fitness to practice panel yesterday.
The GP, who ran Fartown Health Centre on Spaines Road, was earlier this week found guilty of malpractice by the Manchester panel on 11 patients between 1985 and 2005.
The charges included putting patients at unnecessary risk with inappropriate treatments, failing to properly monitor patients’ conditions and breaching patient confidentiality.
The panel made its decision following the GMC’s recommendation to strike Dr Dutt off the medical register.
As the 66-year-old bowed his head in clear distress at the panel’s decision, panel chairman Andrew Reid told him: “You placed patients at risk by your deficient professional performance.
“The findings against you represent a serious breach of the principles and standards of conduct that the public is entitled to expect from registered medical practitioners.
“To take no action in this case would not reflect the seriousness of the panel’s findings nor would it restore public confidence in the profession.
“The panel has concluded that your misconduct and deficient professional performance is fundamentally incompatible with your continuing to be a registered medical practitioner.”
The panel chairman told Dr Dutt that his practice, which he ran single-handedly, suffered from the fact that he had no interaction with other GPs and failed to keep up with important changes in medical practice like computerisation.
This, he said lead to a chaotic practice which was “increasingly at risk of departing from the mainstream”.
At the hearing, Dr Dutt spoke of the personal problems that had affected his work, including the breakdown of his marriage and his inability to contact his two daughters.
He also said that he had been victimised by businessman David Ruddiman, against whom he had breached patient confidentiality to frame in court, adding that the case against him was a “gross miscarriage of justice”.
Mr Reid told Dr Dutt that it was clear from the testimonials of some colleagues, friends and former patients that for many years he enjoyed good standing and popularity in the local community.
However, Mr Reid added that Dr Dutt’s dishonesty, particularly in tricking an elderly patient into signing a letter, was “particularly serious as it undermines the confidence that the public has in the profession.”