Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS panel strikes off Perumal Chokkalingam over consent and dishonesty findings
An HCPTS panel struck physiotherapist Perumal Chokkalingam from the register after finding failures over consent and stopping treatment, followed by two dishonest statements.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 17 September 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 Perumal Chokkalingam, physiotherapist (Health and Care Professions Council PH70925).
Decision date: 17 September 2024 · Hearing started 9 September 2024 and ended 17 September 2024
In plain English
The HCPTS panel found that physiotherapist Perumal Chokkalingam failed to obtain informed consent, continued treatment after a service user repeatedly asked him to stop, and later made two dishonest statements about what happened. It found misconduct and current impairment, citing limited insight and a risk of repetition, and ordered him struck from the register.
Charges
The allegations concerned failures to explain treatment, obtain informed consent, answer a service user's question about X-ray results and stop treatment when asked; an inaccurate consent entry in the service user's records; and incorrect statements to two people about whether the service user asked him to stop. It was alleged that the inaccurate record and statements were dishonest.
Findings
The panel found proved the failures to explain treatment, obtain informed consent, answer the question about X-ray results and stop treatment when repeatedly asked. It found the consent record inaccurate but not dishonest. It found two later statements dishonest, misconduct and current impairment on the personal and public components, and imposed a striking-off order.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
The Registrant’s misconduct represents an isolated incident resulting from the treatment of a single service user on one occasion; and The Registrant does not have any previous regulatory findings recorded against him.
Aggravating factors
That the Registrant behaved dishonestly on two separate occasions to conceal his wrongdoing; That the Registrant’s actions caused Service User A a significant amount of pain and distress by continuing with painful treatment when Service User A had repeatedly asked him to stop. Instead, he inferred that Service User A was being “over-sensitive”; There has been no expression of remorse, regret or apology; The Registrant has not meaningfully demonstrated that he has remediated his failings; and The Registrant has demonstrated limited insight into his failings.
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.