Dental Professionals Hearings Service determination — substantive hearing
GDC panel suspends dentist Suraj Vatish for four months over consent and dishonesty findings
The GDC's Professional Conduct Committee has suspended dentist Suraj Vatish for four months after finding he reopened a baby's tongue-tie and lip-tie wounds without informed consent and dishonestly made a refund conditional on the removal of a negative review.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 18 June 2026 · Updated 8 July 2026
Suspension (suspended from practice) — 4 months
Added to MedicWatch: 8 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 Suraj Vatish, dentist (General Dental Council 259241).
Decision date: 18 June 2026 · Hearing started 8 June 2026 and ended 18 June 2026
In plain English
The GDC tribunal decided that dentist Suraj Vatish's fitness to practise was impaired by misconduct and suspended him for four months, with immediate effect and a review. The Professional Conduct Committee found he failed to obtain informed consent before reopening a baby's tongue-tie and lip-tie wounds, handled the parents' complaint defensively without an apology, and acted dishonestly by making a refund conditional on removing a negative review.
Charges
It was alleged that Mr Vatish failed to obtain informed consent for tongue-tie and lip-tie treatment provided to Patient A, a baby, on 27 January 2023, including the risks, treatment options, evidence base and cost; failed to obtain informed consent for treatment on 13 February 2023; failed to provide an adequate standard of care by reopening the wounds; failed to maintain adequate records; failed to respond appropriately to the parents' complaint, including making a refund conditional on signing an agreement form requiring confidentiality and removal of reviews; made disparaging remarks about the parents in an internal email; and that his conduct was unprofessional, misleading and dishonest.
Findings
The Committee found proved that Mr Vatish failed to discuss the cost of the lip-tie treatment on 27 January 2023, failed to obtain informed consent before reopening the wounds on 13 February 2023, failed to keep adequate records of that appointment and of laser settings, reacted defensively to the parents' complaint without offering an apology, made a refund conditional on signing an agreement requiring confidentiality and review removal, and made disparaging comments about the parents in an internal email. It found the attempt to secure removal of the negative review misleading and dishonest. The consent, complaint-handling and dishonesty findings amounted to misconduct and fitness to practise was found currently impaired. Allegations concerning consent for the initial procedures, off-label anaesthetic use and the standard of care on 13 February 2023 were found not proved. The Committee directed suspension for four months with a review before expiry, and imposed an immediate suspension order.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
No fitness to practise history; remedial action taken over a sustained period of time; no evidence of repetition.
Aggravating factors
Stress and upset caused to the parents of Patient A; insight not sufficient in relation to the matters of informed consent and the need to treat patients with dignity and respect when handling patient concerns.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Dental Professionals Hearings 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.