Vadhera Nevin 2048902 14-09-2012.pdf - General Pharmaceutical ...

GENERAL PHARMACEUTICAL COUNCIL
FITNESS TO PRACTISE COMMITTEE (Sitting as the Disciplinary
Committee under the Pharmacy Order 2007)
129 Lambeth Road, London SE1 7BT
Friday 14 September 2012
Chairman:
Mr Michael Simon
Committee Members: Mrs Ros Gardner
Mr Paul Glaser
Committee Secretary: Ms Georgia Conrad-Leigh
CASE OF:
VADHERA, Nevin
(Registration Number: 2048902)
DETERMINATION
__________________________
MISS SAFIA IMAN, Case Manager, appeared on behalf of the General
Pharmaceutical Council.
The respondent appeared in person and represented herself.
__________________________
Transcript of the stenograph notes of T A Reed & Co Ltd
Tel No: 01992 465900
___________________________

I N D E X
Page
Determination 1
PLEASE NOTE: Copies printed from email may differ in formatting and/or
page numbering from hard copies

A
DETERMINATION
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
T A REED
& CO LTD
01992-465900
THE CHAIRMAN: This is a principal review hearing in respect of Mrs Nevin Vadhera,
a pharmacist first registered with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain on
19 October 1998, and now registered with the General Pharmaceutical Council, under
registration number 2048902. Miss Iman represents the Council. Mrs Vadhera attended
the hearing today and represented herself and was supported by a family friend.
This review is being held following a principal hearing conducted on 6 October 2011,
when the Committee made findings of fact and determined that Mrs Vadhera’s fitness to
practise was impaired, as at the date of the hearing. They imposed a sanction of
12 months’ suspension.
The essential background, for the purposes of this hearing, is that on 7 December 2006,
Mrs Vadhera made a telephone call to the Society (as the then regulator) in which she
made very serious allegations of misconduct, and what would almost certainly have
amounted to criminal behaviour, against another pharmacist, Ms Nicole Floyd. Those
allegations were utterly false and without foundation, a fact that this Committee takes
the opportunity to repeat, because we are aware of the impact of those allegations on
Ms Floyd’s aspirations to further her pharmacy career in this country.
Although she did not attend the principal hearing, Mrs Vadhera’s case was clear from
the documentary evidence; that is, she made the telephone call under duress from, and at
the direction of, her husband who, it is said, had his own reasons for seeking to discredit
Ms Floyd. There is no doubt, and the Council accept, that Mrs Vadhera was subjected
to significant domestic violence during her marriage. Divorce proceedings were issued
in 2007, shortly after the telephone call was made, which in due course gave rise to
tensions between Mrs Vadhera and her husband about the residence of their young son.
Mr Vadhera died through suicide in May 2008.
The Committee at the hearing in October last year, found the allegation against
1

A
Mrs Vadhera proved. For the sake of completeness that allegation was:
B
C
D
E
F
G
“That being registered with the Society on 19 October 1998, on 7 December
2006 you failed to behave with integrity and probity, failed to adhere to accepted
standards of personal and professional conduct, and engaged in behaviour likely
to bring the profession into disrepute, contrary to Key Responsibility 3 of the
Code of Ethics and Standards. More particularly, that in the course of a
telephone call to a Pharmacy Adviser at the Society you made allegations
relating to professional misconduct on the part of a particular registered
pharmacist at the Alliance Pharmacy, Market Parade, Hanworth, when you knew
or believed that such allegations were false.
The Committee went on to consider impairment and said this:
“We have already expressed our views in relation to some of the background
circumstances surrounding the registrant’s account as it emerged. We have
already found that despite being provided with the opportunity to give a full and
frank account at interview, the registrant’s account emerged in a piecemeal
fashion. We noted also that although the registrant said that she was sorry in her
interview, she showed little insight or true remorse when, on 27 March 2007, she
wrote to Mr Edwards, who was representing Mss Floyd at that time. In our view,
it is significant that, knowing of the serious allegations that had been made the
registrant, in writing that letter, did not admit her own involvement in what had
occurred. Indeed, she specifically asserted that she wanted Ms Floyd to know
that she had no dealings whatsoever in the complaint that was made. That of
course was untrue.”
Having found impairment of fitness to practise, the Committee considered sanction and
said this:
“As to mitigatory features, we have noted all that has been said in writing by the
registrant and others about her relationship with her husband. That evidence has
not been tested before us. Whatever the difficulties in the registrant’s marriage,
or the involvement to put pressure upon her at that time by her husband, her
conduct was egregious. We have considered testimonials from friends who
speak highly of the registrant’s abilities as a pharmacist, and as to her true
character. We noted that these references were very much written on the basis
that it was unthinkable that the registrant had acted in the way that she did.
However, she did act in that way. She had, however, enjoyed the reputation of
being and honest and upright practitioner. She has lost that reputation today by
reason of our findings.”
The Committee went on to say:
H
T A REED
& CO LTD
01992-465900
“We consider that the sanction of a warning, or the imposition of a conditions of
2

A
B
practice order, would not be appropriate in this case because there is insufficient
evidence as to real insight and remorse. Further, this case involves a serious
departure from proper ethical standards. The issue is whether the registrant’s
conduct is such that her continued registration is fundamentally incompatible
with the appropriate protection of the public interest. For reasons which we will
explain, we have decided that the proportionate response in this case is to impose
a suspension of 12 months.”
The Committee went on to say:
C
D
“In our view, despite the seriousness with which we view her conduct, she
should be given an opportunity to demonstrate that she is fit to resume practice at
some stage before five years have elapsed, which she would not be able to do
were we to erase her name from the register today. We will review the
registrant’s case in ten months’ time. The registrant should understand that the
powers of the Committee at that stage are to extend the period of suspension,
terminate the suspension, impose conditions of practice or remove her name
from the register. The Committee will be assisted by evidence at that stage from
the registrant as to the issue of her insight into the seriousness of the facts found
proved, and her attitude in relation to her future ability to uphold the standards of
the profession.”
I simply mention in passing that the reference to terminating the suspension is a mistake.
E
F
Our task today is to consider first whether Mrs Vadhera ’s fitness to practise remains
impaired as of today’s date. That assessment must be made in the context of the
evidence that she has presented to us, and the way in which that evidence would be
viewed by the public and by the profession, given that the public interest engaged in this
case is public confidence in the profession, as well as the declaration and upholding of
proper standards of conduct and behaviour within the profession.
G
H
T A REED
& CO LTD
01992-465900
Mrs Vadhera gave oral evidence to us, in which she expressed remorse about her
conduct. She said that she accepted everything that had happened at the previous
hearing, which we take to mean the findings of the Committee. However, she gave
fuller details about the influence she said her husband exerted over her, which led to her
making the fateful telephone call. She said that she should have been stronger. She
explained that her personal situation now continues to improve. As to her
non-attendance at the principal hearing, she said:
“Please don’t think last time that I didn’t care. I was just so scared, ashamed,
3

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
embarrassed. It was not a nice situation to be in. I didn’t know how to deal with
it.”
Although she also she made reference to it coinciding with the anniversary of her
ex-husband’s death, this was obviously a mistake. However, in cross-examination from
Miss Iman, Mrs Vadhera seemed unable to offer any convincing explanation for her
failure to be full and frank about her conduct, either in interview with the Society’s
Inspector in April 2008 or, perhaps more significantly, in 2010 and onwards, when these
proceedings were afoot.
It seemed to us clear that Mrs Vadhera is very remorseful about her conduct and the
consequences of it for her, but her failure to engage fully with these proceedings until
today has called into question the degree of her insight, irrespective of the root cause of
her conduct, into the effects on Ms Floyd and the reputation of the profession. In
addition, we have no supporting evidence before us, save that which was before last
year’s Committee. We would have expected more recent character references, or similar
letters of support, that could attest to the genuineness of Mrs Vadhera’s rehabilitation in
the light of the findings actually made by the Committee last year, as opposed to those
that are based on an inability to conceive of her capacity to commit such misconduct.
The nature of her actions is such that, as the Committee found, her integrity is plainly
called into question and therefore evidence from whatever source that she can now
engender the trust of colleagues and members of the public, would have greatly assisted
this Committee.
Whilst recognising Mrs Vadhera’s genuine expressions of remorse and her evolving
insight, we have reached the judgment that she has not yet demonstrated the requisite
degree of such insight to persuade us that she is fit to return to practice at the end of the
current suspension. We have therefore concluded that her fitness to practise remains
impaired.
H
T A REED
& CO LTD
01992-465900
As to the sanction we impose in such circumstances, we balance our findings on
impairment with the fact that Mrs Vadhera is representing herself and that the exact
nature of the information that she could and should have produced to us may not have
been spelt out clearly. Our powers under Article 52(4) are somewhat constricting.
4

A
B
C
D
E
F
Having decided that Mrs Vadhera has moved some way along the road of being able to
practise, but not having completed the process, the only alternative to an extension of the
suspension order is a conditions of practice order. That is plainly inappropriate in the
circumstances of this case, as workable, practicable and measurable conditions relating
to integrity would be difficult, if not impossible, to formulate.
In all the circumstances we have concluded that the proportionate sanction, that is the
one that interferes with Mrs Vadhera ’s right to work as a pharmacist no more than is
absolutely necessary in order to meet the objective of protecting the public interest, is a
three-month extension to the existing suspension order. The purpose of that extension is
to mark the fact that we have not been sufficiently convinced by Mrs Vadhera’s
evidence alone that she has remediated her misconduct, and it is to give her an early
opportunity, at a further review hearing to be held shortly before the expiry of the
three-month additional period, to submit documentary supportive evidence in the form
of testimonials from voluntary or other work that she may undertake, and in the form of
character references from those who know her, and who are made aware of the full
findings of the Committee from last year, that will demonstrate that she can now be
trusted to exercise proper judgement in her professional role in the future.
The effect of this order is that the suspension that would have expired in November is
now extended for a period of three months from that date. We order a review to take
place shortly before the end of that extension.
Are there any other matters
MISS IMAN: No, Sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming, Mrs Vadhera. That is the end
of the hearing.
G
- - - - -
H
T A REED
& CO LTD
01992-465900
5