Suresh and others (Appellants) v General Medical Council (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0130

Parties

Appellant(s)

(1) Visalakshmi Suresh (2) Mukunth Suresh (3) Tharun Suresh

Respondent(s)

General Medical Council

Issue

Does the Respondent, a statutory regulator, owe a duty of care to avoid foreseeable psychiatric injury or suicide to a professional whom it is investigating, in respect of the manner and timing of the notification to that professional that an investigation is being carried out?

Facts

The late Dr Sridharan Suresh was a consultant anaesthetist at North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust (the “Trust”). He also had a private practice at the Grace Dental Practice and other private hospitals. On 29 March 2018, a complaint was made to the Police regarding a sexual assault on a teenage girl following a dental procedure which took place at Grace Dental Practice, alleged to have taken place some 3 days earlier. In April 2018 Mr Suresh was interviewed by the police in connection with those allegations (which he denied) and suspended by the Trust. The Police also notified the General Medical Council (the “Respondent”) that they were investigating Dr Suresh. On 2 May 2018, the Respondent notified Mr Suresh that an investigation into his Fitness to Practise had been opened. Later that day, Dr Suresh died by suicide. Ultimately, the identification evidence given to the police by the complainant was inconsistent with the perpetrator having been Dr Suresh. The Police decided that there was insufficient evidence to give rise to a realistic prospect of conviction. Dr Suresh’s wife and two children (the “Appellants”) brought proceedings against the Respondent in September 2022. They argue that the Respondent owed Dr Suresh a duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which might foreseeably cause him psychiatric injury, and to take all reasonably practicable steps to avoid or minimise that risk of psychiatric injury. They argue that the Respondent breached that duty as regards the way in which they notified him that they had begun their investigation. The High Court rejected that claim on the basis that the Respondent did not owe such a duty. The Court of Appeal agreed. The Appellants now seek permission to appeal to this Court.