Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
No case to answer
What does “no case to answer” mean?
The regulator considered the concerns and decided there was no case to answer. No further action was taken.
Concerning Prashant Jindal, doctor (General Medical Council 6061373).
Decision date: 20 June 2025 · Hearing started 2 June 2025 and ended 20 June 2025
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal considered a misconduct case for Prashant Jindal. It recorded the decision on impairment as not recorded and recorded that there was no case to answer. The source PDF contains the tribunal's published reasons, with any private material redacted where required.
Charges
The MPTS PDF background states: to the Rule 17(2)(g) application 7. Dr Jindal qualified in 1997 from the University of Mumbai. He moved to the UK in 2005 and gained full registration with the GMC in 2006. Since 2008, Dr Jindal has been performing laser eye surgeries. Dr Jindal is a consultant ophthalmic surgeon who specialises in laser eye surgery. At the relevant time (September 2011 and December 2016), Dr Jindal did surgical work at clinics operated by Accuvision Limited (“Accuvision”). Accuvision is owned by Mr C who has a son, Mr D. 8. The background to the GMC bringing these proceedings against Dr Jindal is as follows: a. Patient A complained to the GMC in December 2012 about his experience as a customer of Accuvision, stating that his complaint had ‘nothing to do with his recovery’. He named Mr C as ‘involved with his issues’. The GMC closed the matter as Mr C did not hold registration with the GMC; b. On 22 November 2017, Patient A made a new complaint to the GMC to raise ‘an issue with how my surgery was conducted’ and alleged that Dr Jindal let an unqualified person operate on his eyes; c. On 27 June 2018, Patient B complained to the GMC that his medical records showed Dr Jindal as his operating surgeon but he had never met Dr Jindal. 9. In summary,
Findings
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal considered a misconduct case for Prashant Jindal. The detail page records impairment as not recorded and the tribunal recorded that there was no case to answer.
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If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.