Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
MPTS orders Dr Surrayya Najeeb's erasure over dishonesty and performance findings
The tribunal found impaired fitness to practise on both grounds and ordered erasure with immediate suspension. It found insufficient insight and remediation, while accepting that actual serious harm had not been caused.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 9 September 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction
What does “struck off the register” mean?
The regulator directed removal from the register in this decision. The decision explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions. Check the official register for the practitioner's current registration status.
Concerning Surrayya Kamal NAJEEB, doctor (General Medical Council 7666217).
Decision date: 9 September 2026 · Hearing started 24 August 2026 and ended 9 September 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found Dr Surrayya Najeeb's fitness to practise impaired by dishonesty and deficient professional performance. It found that she misrepresented her role, performance concerns and qualification status. On 9 September 2026 it ordered erasure and immediate suspension, concluding that conditions or suspension would not adequately protect the public. The tribunal accepted that actual serious harm had not been caused, but found insufficient insight and remediation and a risk of future harm.
Charges
The GMC alleged dishonesty about a move from consultant to registrar duties, concerns about clinical performance and the status of an advanced life support qualification. It also alleged deficient performance identified by a GMC assessment. One allegation concerning written confirmation was withdrawn, and the alleged failure to disclose non-progression to course testing was not proved.
Findings
The tribunal found dishonest misrepresentation of Dr Najeeb's role, performance concerns and qualification status, together with deficient professional performance. It found impairment on both grounds. It found no meaningful insight into dishonesty and insufficient remediation of clinical deficiencies, and concluded that conditions or suspension would not adequately protect the public. It ordered erasure and immediate suspension. It accepted that actual serious harm had not been caused, while finding a risk of future harm.
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.