Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — review hearing
No impairment found
What does “no impairment found” mean?
The regulator considered the case and found that the practitioner's fitness to practise was not currently impaired. No restrictions are imposed.
Concerning Sajjad Sheikh, doctor (General Medical Council 7818311).
Decision date: 12 September 2025 · Hearing started 11 September 2025 and ended 12 September 2025
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal considered a misconduct case for Sajjad Sheikh. It recorded the decision on impairment as not impaired and found the doctor's fitness to practise was not impaired. The source PDF contains the tribunal's published reasons, with any private material redacted where required.
Charges
The MPTS PDF background states: 2. Dr Sajjad Aamer Sheikh qualified in 2020 from the Univerzity Palackeho v Olomouci Lekarska Fakulta, Czechia. He began work as a Junior Clinical Fellow in Emergency Medicine at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in October 2020. February 2023 Tribunal 3. Between 6 - 10 February 2023 and 25 – 26 February 2023 (‘the February 2023 Tribunal), Dr Sheikh’s case was considered by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (the February 2023 Tribunal). 4. In summary, the February 2023 considered an allegation that, between 16 October 2020 and 30 November 2020, Dr Sheikh engaged in an improper emotional relationship with Patient A who was vulnerable due to her mental health difficulties. At the time of events Dr Sheikh had been practising as a Junior Clinical Fellow at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Hospital’) in the Accident and Emergency (‘A&E’) Department and was six weeks into his first post as a doctor since qualifying. 5. Dr Sheikh made full admissions to
Findings
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal considered a misconduct case for Sajjad Sheikh. The detail page records impairment as not impaired and the tribunal found the doctor's fitness to practise was not impaired.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.