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 Sachin Manoraj, doctor (General Medical Council 7944815).
Decision date: 11 March 2026 · Hearing started 11 March 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Sachin Manoraj's fitness to practise is no longer impaired and revoked his suspension. He had been suspended for 12 months in March 2025 for dishonestly concealing driving convictions from Imperial College London and the GMC. The Chair, deciding on the papers with the agreement of both sides, accepted that he had completed extensive CPD on probity and ethics and developed full insight, and that his unpaid work order had been completed.
Charges
Review on the papers of a 12-month suspension imposed by the March 2025 Tribunal. The earlier Tribunal had found that Dr Manoraj had been dishonest in submitting false information in a school of medicine criminal record self-declaration form; he had been convicted on 14 September 2021 of driving without due care and attention; he was charged on 12 November 2021 in respect of several criminal offences; he had dishonestly concealed his convictions and charges from Imperial College London and from the GMC on applying for registration; and he was convicted on 24 April 2023 of dangerous driving (for which he received a 12-month community order, 90 hours unpaid work, and 12 months disqualification).
Findings
The Legally Qualified Chair, conducting the review on the papers with the agreement of both parties, found that Dr Manoraj had developed full insight and remediated his past failings. He had completed six relevant CPD courses between May 2025 and November 2025 on probity, ethics, honesty/dishonesty and remediation, with reflections relating his learning to his own past actions. HM Prison and Probation Service had confirmed completion of the 90 hours of unpaid work and that all requirements of the relevant order had been complied with. The Chair determined that the public interest no longer required a finding of impairment.
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.