Dentistry.co.uk logo
Search
Members' Area
Username
Password
Remember me
Register free
Forgotten password







News RSS Feed View by: Most Recent | Most Popular | Most Discussed

Dentist suspended for hiding ‘John Lewis theft’

2nd Sep 2009

Share on facebook Recommend on Facebook
Share on Twitter Share on Twitter
Email this story Email this story

Email this story
  

Share this story
Digg it Delicious submit to reddit printer-friendly version


> Other stories
Dentists' opinions sought on ethical advertising
Fraud risk to dental hygienists and therapists
Poll reveals dentists ‘unprepared’ for watchdog scheme
Dental team in recruitment appeal
 

A dentist convicted of six counts of theft amounting to £25,000 from his employer, John Lewis, has been suspended from the register.

Samit Ashok Shah failed to disclose he was under investigation by the police when he applied to the General Dental Council (GDC) for registration on the Dentists Register and to the London Deanery for the position of Specialist Registrar in Dental Public Health.

Mr Shah also failed to disclose the criminal proceedings which led to his conviction on his applications for employment to the Hillingdon Primary Care Trust (PCT) and the St. Mary's NHS Trust.

The Professional Conduct Committee heard on 4 August at Southwark Crown Court in London, that the money was returned to his employer in full as soon as Mr Shah's actions came to light.

But Mr Shah admitted all of the heads of charge and his fitness to practise was found to be impaired by reason of his misconduct.

A GDC spokesperson said: ‘The committee was clear that this misconduct was not only dishonest, but also has a profound, adverse impact on the reputation of, and public confidence in, the profession.  The committee was told he is an exceptionally bright and valued dentist who is involved in volunteer and charity  work.'

It also heard that at the time of the offence Mr Shah was under intense personal pressure.

The committee felt he had shown insight and remorse at having been convicted of dishonesty and the committee was also ‘very impressed' with the current level of professional support from senior colleagues.

Although the committee considered this matter to be ‘very serious', it said that in the light of everything it heard, it edecided that 12 month suspension would be a proportionate.



Comments
Please log-in to post comments.

Advertisement