General Pharmaceutical Council determination — substantive hearing
Erasure (struck off the register)
Added to MedicWatch: 5 May 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 Naureen Amirali WALJI, pharmacist (General Pharmaceutical Council 2066151).
Decision date: 12 July 2024 · Hearing started 1 July 2024 and ended 12 July 2024
In plain English
The GPhC committee decided that Naureen Amirali WALJI should be subject to the published outcome from a principal hearing in a misconduct case. The committee directed removal from the register. It records fitness to practise as impaired. The official determination gives the committee's reasons, order wording, and any conditions attached to the decision.
Charges
The GPhC allegation section states: “You a registered pharmacist, 1. Whilst working for UK Meds Direct Ltd between approximately November 2018 and September 2019, you prescribed and/or approved approximately 35,824 prescriptions for high-risk medicines and/or medicines requiring ongoing monitoring. [ACCEPTED] 2. In relation to 1 above, you failed to prescribe medicines in accordance with and/or pay due regard to the relevant guidance on prescribing from the General Medical Council (“GMC”), the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (“RPS”) and/or the General Pharmaceutical Council (“GPhC”) in that you prescribed in circumstances where you: 2.1 failed to obtain adequate information in relation to the patients’ health in advance of prescribing; 2.2 relied principally on the information received in an online questionnaire; 2.3 failed to access and/or attempt to access patients’ General Practitioner (“GP”) medical records and/or specialist clinical records in order to have a full picture of their physical and/or mental health, current prescribed medication and/or addiction history; 3 2.4 failed to request a face-to-face consultation with patients in order to adequately examine the clinical need for medication; 2.5 failed to adequately consider the possibility of medication dependence and misuse; 2.6 failed to refer patients back to their GP for appropriate assessment and/or review and/or monitoring; 2.7 failed to put adequate safety-netting in place. [ACCEPTED] 3. In relation to 1 above, you prescribed in circumstances where the UK Meds Direct Ltd prescribing model or service was incapable of supporting safe prescribing decisions in that: 3.1 no face-to-face or other virtual consultation took place other than the use of a questionnaire; 3.2 patients were allowed to pre-select the medicine, strength, and quantity they...
Findings
The GPhC Fitness to Practise Committee held a principal hearing for Naureen Amirali WALJI in a misconduct case. The cover page records facts proved: 5, 16, 17, 23 Facts proved by admission: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Facts not proved: None. It records fitness to practise as impaired. The committee directed removal from the register.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published General Pharmaceutical Council 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.