Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS strikes off Kumarini Fonseka over repeated laboratory misconduct
A panel found persistent misconduct, limited insight, a likelihood of repetition and an appreciable risk of patient harm.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 26 January 2024 · Updated 23 September 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Data last checked: 23 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 Kumarini Fonseka, biomedical scientist (Health and Care Professions Council BS67247).
Decision date: 26 January 2024 · Hearing started 8 January 2024 and ended 26 January 2024
In plain English
The HCPTS panel found repeated laboratory-practice misconduct by biomedical scientist Kumarini Fonseka, with all factual particulars proved except 1(c), 5(b) and 6(b). It found current impairment, a likelihood of repetition and an appreciable harm risk, struck her off and imposed an 18-month interim suspension pending appeal.
Charges
It was alleged that between 2016 and 2019 the Registrant made repeated laboratory-practice errors, including sharing an unverified result, insufficient review of blood films, failures to follow procedures, unsupervised analyser use contrary to instructions, ignoring a reagent warning and errors in manual differential counts; that the matters amounted to misconduct and/or lack of competence and that her fitness to practise was impaired.
Findings
The Panel proved all factual particulars except 1(c), 5(b) and 6(b). It found every proved matter amounted to misconduct rather than lack of competence, and found current impairment on both personal and public components with a likelihood of repetition and an appreciable risk of harm. It ordered striking off and imposed an interim suspension for the maximum 18 months pending appeal.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
The fact that she had fully engaged in these proceedings. The extent of the actual harm arising from the proven matters was the fact that the patient concerned in particular 6 was unnecessarily called into hospital.
Aggravating factors
The potential for patient harm. The fact that the Registrant had not worked in partnership with colleagues. Lack of insight; the Panel has already stated that the Registrant has not demonstrated insight into the actual and potential consequences of her actions, and her written reflections are deficient for the reasons already stated. Repeated misconduct. The likelihood of repetition.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Health and Care Professions 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.