Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
Suspended from practice — 1 year
The regulator’s term: suspension
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 Muhammad Imran, doctor (General Medical Council 7816173).
Decision date: 27 March 2026 · Hearing started 9 March 2026 and ended 27 March 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Muhammad Imran, a paediatric cardiac surgery fellow in Birmingham, physically and emotionally abused his partner Ms A over a long period. The tribunal said the abuse was serious misconduct and that his insight into what he had done was superficial. It suspended his registration for 12 months with a review hearing and imposed an immediate order of suspension. Dr Imran had returned to practise in Pakistan and relinquished his GMC licence in 2025.
Charges
It was alleged that Dr Imran physically abused Ms A on multiple specified occasions, including beating her on the neck and shoulders, slapping her, punching her back, hitting her while driving, scratching her face, grabbing her hair, and pushing her, and that between specified dates he engaged in a course of conduct (set out in Confidential Schedule 2) which had a serious effect on Ms A. Dr Imran admitted some matters at the outset and the remaining paragraphs were determined by the Tribunal at the facts stage.
Findings
The Tribunal found the substantive paragraphs of the Allegation proved on the balance of probabilities, accepting Ms A's evidence as credible and reliable and noting it was supported by audio and video recordings, contemporaneous WhatsApp messages, photographs of injuries and a contemporaneous police statement. The Tribunal found Dr Imran's conduct breached paragraphs 1 and 65 of Good Medical Practice 2013 and paragraphs 1 and 81 of Good Medical Practice 2024, amounted to serious misconduct and fell at the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness. It found his insight to be superficial and that he continued to seek to blame Ms A. The current and ongoing risk to public protection was high and 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.