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 Om Arora, doctor (General Medical Council 2445320).
Decision date: 9 July 2025 · Hearing started 7 July 2025 and ended 9 July 2025
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal considered a restoration case for Om Arora. It recorded the decision on impairment as not recorded and refused the doctor's restoration application. The source PDF contains the tribunal's published reasons, with any private material redacted where required.
Charges
The MPTS PDF background states: 4. In August 2003 the GMC was notified by the Medical Director of Birmingham Heartlands Hospital of concerns about the standard of Dr Arora’s professional performance. In light of these concerns, Dr Arora agreed to undergo an assessment of the standard of his professional performance. The assessment took place in May 2004 and the findings of the assessment team indicated that the standard of Dr Arora’s professional performance was unacceptable in the following areas: • Assessment of the patient’s condition. • Providing or arranging investigations. • Providing or arranging treatment. • Record keeping. • Treatment in emergencies. • Constructive participation in audit, assessment and appraisal. • Communication with patients. Record of Determinations – Medical Practitioners Tribunal MPT: Dr ARORA 3 5. The assessment team also found that Dr Arora’s performance was a cause for concern in the following areas: • Working within limits of competence. • Paying due regard to efficacy and use of resources. • Respect for patients, trust and confidentiality. • Relationships with colleagues/GPs/teamwork. 6. Phase two of the performance assessment consisted of a knowledge test in the form of extended matching questions (EMQs), a simulated surgery of ten scenarios, and a 13- station objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Dr Arora’s score in the knowledge test was 50%, which was below the minimum acceptable score of 68%. Dr Arora’s score in the simulated surgeries was 44%, which was below the minimum acceptable score of 50%. His score of 74% in the OSCEs was above the minimum acceptable score of 70%. As a consequence, Dr Arora’s case was referred to a Fitness to Practise Panel and a hearing was held between 13-16 March 2006 (‘the 2006 Panel’). 7. In his evidence before the...
Findings
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal considered a restoration case for Om Arora. The detail page records impairment as not recorded and the tribunal refused the doctor's restoration application.
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.