Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — review hearing
No impairment found
Added to MedicWatch: 3 May 2026Report a correction
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 Herjyot Dharni, doctor (General Medical Council 7177173).
Decision date: 16 December 2025 · Hearing started 16 December 2025
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Dharni's fitness to practise is no longer impaired. At a review hearing on 16 December 2025, the tribunal considered progress since an 8-month suspension imposed in March 2025 for dishonesty in regulatory applications. The tribunal was satisfied that Dr Dharni had completed relevant continuing professional development, developed adequate insight, and put coping mechanisms in place. It assessed the risk of repetition as low and found no further restrictive action was required.
Charges
Dr Dharni faced a review of an 8-month suspension imposed by the March 2025 Tribunal. The original findings concerned her failure to declare her work at HealthHarmonie Ltd to the GMC and Health Education England West Midlands, and her dishonesty in submitting an application to HEEWM without disclosing an ongoing GMC investigation and making a false declaration about the nature of her leave.
Findings
The Review Tribunal found that Dr Dharni's fitness to practise is no longer impaired by reason of misconduct. It assessed her risk as low, noting significant remediation, developing insight, and implementation of coping mechanisms. The Tribunal accepted that a 6 October 2025 email in which she reiterated denials was sent during an emotionally difficult period and was subsequently retracted. It was satisfied that Dr Dharni accepts the March 2025 Tribunal's findings. The suspension order was allowed to continue to its natural expiry rather than being revoked early.
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If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.