Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — restoration hearing
Restoration to the register refused
The regulator’s term: restoration refused
What does “restoration to the register refused” mean?
A practitioner who had been struck off applied for restoration to the register and the application was refused. The original strike-off remains in effect.
Concerning Ijaz Hayat, doctor (General Medical Council 5151187).
Decision date: 10 April 2026 · Hearing started 8 April 2026 and ended 10 April 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal decided that Dr Ijaz Hayat's name should not be restored to the medical register. He had been erased in 2017 for repeated dishonesty over a long period involving a fraudulent insurance claim and forged documents. This was his second restoration attempt. The tribunal found his insight had developed but his remediation was not complete, and noted concerns about how he had handled references during the restoration process. He may not apply for restoration for 12 months.
Charges
Second application for restoration to the Medical Register following disciplinary erasure in 2017. The 2017 Tribunal had found that in June 2010 Dr Hayat made an online application for Illness Cover in which he failed to disclose his family history of medical conditions, and on 18 October 2012 he submitted an Illness Cover claim form falsely claiming he had suffered a heart attack while in Pakistan, supported by a false discharge letter and other forged documents. He maintained the false claim, including providing photographs taken at a different time to investigators and during police interviews. The 2017 Tribunal found his dishonest behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. A first restoration application was refused in February 2025.
Findings
The Tribunal accepted that Dr Hayat had developed substantial insight and taken meaningful steps towards remediation, including CPD, a reflective diary and a clinical attachment in the UK since July 2025. However, it found his remediation incomplete because behaviours that led to his erasure had resurfaced during the restoration process: he had not been fully open with the referee Dr A about why he had been erased, leading to an inaccurate witness statement; and the witness statement of Dr C overstated the length of their professional relationship. The Tribunal also had ongoing concerns about his clinical competence, given he had not worked in an unrestricted clinical setting since 2014 nor in any UK clinical environment since 2017.
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.