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 Sameed Zahid, doctor (General Medical Council 7762488).
Decision date: 9 September 2025 · Hearing started 9 September 2025
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal considered a misconduct case for Sameed Zahid. 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 Zahid qualified MBBS in 2015 from Sichuan Medical University. He attained full registration in 2022. 3. The matters which led to Dr Zahid appearing before a Medical Practitioner’s Tribunal can be summarised as follows: in April 2022, Dr Zahid applied to the GMC for full registration. He indicated that in 2016 he had completed a year of postgraduate internship at Southwest Medical University 1st Hospital (‘the Hospital’) in China. It was alleged that Dr Zahid submitted documents and information in support of this application which were false and/or contained false information. It was further alleged that Dr Zahid had not completed the internship and Dr Zahid knew that these claims were false and was thereby dishonest. 4. The initial concerns were raised with the GMC on 24 April 2023, via an online referral form by an anonymous member of the public. The February 2025 Tribunal 5. Dr Zahid’s case was first considered by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) hearing between 17 to 20 February 2025 (‘the February 2025 Tribunal’). Dr Zahid was present and represented at that hearing. At the outset of that hearing, Dr Zahid made full admissions to the entirety of
Findings
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal considered a misconduct case for Sameed Zahid. 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If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.