Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
MPTS tribunal suspends Dr Omar Aziz for six months over dishonest disclosure form
A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service panel has suspended Consultant Dermatologist Dr Omar Aziz for six months, finding he dishonestly failed to declare a previous tribunal warning, fitness-to-practise investigations and practice restrictions on a new employer's form.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 11 June 2026 · Updated 7 July 2026
Suspension (suspended from practice) — 6 months
Added to MedicWatch: 7 July 2026Report a correction
What does “suspended from practice” mean?
A suspension is a fixed-term pause on the right to practise. The practitioner cannot work in the regulated profession during the suspension. At the end of the period the suspension may be extended, replaced with another sanction, or lifted on review.
Concerning Omar Aziz, doctor (General Medical Council 3225833).
Decision date: 11 June 2026 · Hearing started 4 June 2026 and ended 11 June 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Omar Aziz acted dishonestly when he answered 'no' on a January 2025 new starter form for an employer, failing to disclose a 2019 tribunal warning, past and ongoing fitness-to-practise investigations, and current restrictions on his practice. The tribunal decided his fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct and suspended his registration for six months, with a review before it ends.
Charges
On 29 January 2025 Dr Aziz submitted a new starter form to Omnes Healthcare Limited and answered 'No' to the questions 'Have you been the subject of any disciplinary or regulatory investigations?' and 'Are you currently subject to any restrictions on your practice?'. At the time he knew he had been issued with a warning by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal on 4 March 2019, that a GMC fitness-to-practise investigation had been opened on 1 April 2019, that he had been notified on 19 December 2024 that Nuffield Health was carrying out a fact-finding exercise, and that his Nuffield practice had been restricted from 19 December 2024. It was alleged, and found, that both answers were dishonest.
Findings
The Tribunal found both answers dishonest, concluding that Dr Aziz did not genuinely believe the historic 2019 investigations were excluded from the question, that he knew his answers were inaccurate, and that he had sought to gain an advantage. It found his conduct amounted to serious misconduct breaching Good Medical Practice, that the level of seriousness and risk to public protection were high, and that his insight and remediation were limited. It determined his fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct.
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.