Peterborough City Hospital sexual health consultant struck off for dishonesty

Peterborough City Hospital, Bretton. Photo: Peterborough Telegraph

Peterborough City Hospital, Bretton. Photo: Peterborough Telegraph

8
Have your say

A top consultant at Peterborough City Hospital has been struck off after pretending to be on a part time contract, when he was being paid to work full time.

Dr Sathiyakeerthy Ariyanayagam was lead consultant for sexual health at the hospital, and told colleagues he was a part time worker, coming in on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

He was actually paid for working a five day week.

At a Medical Practitioners Tribunal, he was found guilty of misconduct, after the panel found he had acted dishonestly and his behaviour ’fell seriously short of the standards expected of a doctor.’

A report from the tribunal said: “The Panel concluded that your dishonesty was persistent, and was an abuse of your position of trust. You put your own interests before those of the service by not being present at the hospital when required. Although you were not absent on clinic days, you were expected to be available for any ad hoc work and were entrusted with providing support to the department. In these circumstances, the

Panel determined that your dishonest conduct is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration, and concluded that it must direct that your name be erased from the register in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”

The hearing had heard how swipe card data had been used to prove Dr Ariyanayagam, who had worked as a Regional Chair for Governance at the British Association of Sexual Health and HIV Medicine from 2012, and also worked for the GMC and BMA, was absent from work on 91 occasions - all Mondays and Tuesdays - between 2011 and 2013.

The report added: “ The Panel considered that your misconduct has brought the medical profession into disrepute, you have breached fundamental tenets of the profession, and you have acted dishonestly. In those circumstances, the Panel concluded that your fitness to practise is currently impaired. It further considered that a finding of impairment is also required in order to protect public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”