In April last year, we reported on a case in which the widow of a doctor sued the General Medical Council (GMC) because her husband had committed suicide after being informed that he was the subject of a misconduct allegation (details of which are set out below). The widow alleged that the GMC was in breach of a duty of care owed to her husband as a registrant. The High Court struck out the claim on the basis that no such duty of care existed in law. The case has now been considered by the Court of Appeal.
Lord Justice Bean gave the judgment in Suresh v General Medical Council [2026] EWCA Civ 955 with which Lady Justice Whipple and Baroness Carr, the Lady Chief Justice agreed.
Lord Justice Bean began his judgment by summarising that on 2 May 2018, Dr Sridharan Suresh (“Dr Suresh”), a consultant anaesthetist with a distinguished and unblemished professional record, took his own life after he had been notified in an email earlier that day by the GMC that it had opened an investigation into his fitness to practise, and that his case was to be referred to an Interim Orders Tribunal. The judge added that although the appeal raised questions of law, and the essential facts were not in dispute, it should not be overlooked that the case arises out of a great tragedy for Dr Suresh’s family.
The GMC, like the General Pharmaceutical Council and all the UK’s other healthcare regulators has a statutory overarching objective when exercising its functions, namely the protection of the public. Mrs Suresh brought her claim in the face of previously decided cases that a public authority does not owe a duty of care when it is exercising statutory functions. She argued that the GMC had a legal duty to take reasonable care for the welfare of a registrant in how the bad news is broken; the terms in which it is notified; and whether enquiries should be made in every case as to whether the doctor is particularly vulnerable and in need of counselling.
Lord Justice Bean rejected Mrs Suresh’s argument, holding that no such duty of care exists. He said:
“the recognition of a duty of care of a doctor subject to investigation would risk creating conflicts where the duty to investigate in accordance with the overarching objective would point one way and the interests of the doctor would point the other way.”
Lord Justice Bean continued:
“In sending the email of 2 May 2018 [the GMC] was simply doing something which the statute and rules obliged it to do. The tone of the letter is not in my view arguably inappropriate or insensitive. Even if it had been, to impose a duty would be inconsistent with [previously decided cases].
Lord Justice Bean added that the GMC “was not the employer and did not have legal obligations to take steps to promote the registrant’s welfare.”
He concluded by saying:
“Where a medical practitioner is accused of misconduct such as a sexual assault on a child patient, the accusation often leads to the involvement of the police, and of local authority social services if the doctor has children; to precautionary suspension by the employer; to a referral to the GMC and by them to the [Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT)]; and to a suspension from practice by the IOT for what may be a considerable period until the matter is finally resolved. The process can seem lengthy and complex, and in some cases it may cause great distress. … Nevertheless, it is clear that the law does not impose a duty of care on investigators or statutory regulators in those circumstances.
This is a very sad case, but I consider that the judge was clearly right to strike out the claims.”