A group of extortionists planted patients, coached them & brought fake cases to the General Medical Council & then approached jury members to give judgment against top eye surgeon of UK, Dr Prashant Jindal
Dr. Prashant Jindal is respected as one of the best refractive eye surgeon in the UK, is responsible for many game-changing innovations in the field, treating the most complex of cases and celebrities from Hollywood to heads of state to Olympic champions, besides being a best-selling author. Besides, he worked six days a week throughout the pandemic but was taken to GMC for being too sincere to his patients and work.
A team about whom a lot of articles have recently surfaced is also involved in vexatiously bring fake cases against him. The purpose is to extort huge sums of money from doctors with a parallel compensation claim filed and the GMC case is to build the pressure to settle. Litigant chased Dr.Jindal since years but being unable to find a single clinical issue against him, her strategy changed to planting a non-clinical issue.
Litigant then found two patients (operated on in 2011 & 2016 resp) & provided them audio-visual recording equipment. She coached them to visit Dr.Jindal’s clinic, and lodge false complaints but not to allow any examination of their eyes (all evidence available with us and will be available on our website).
Litigant of BBC also lodged false complaints with the police of fraud to incite an arrest. Parallelly, a false compensation claim in court was filed, and offers were sent via solicitors to settle by paying up, which Dr.Jindal refused to and opted to fight in the court.
Seeing that Dr. Prashant Jindal was tough to break, Litigant’s team wrote to the GMC that she represented two patients who allege that Dr.Jindal was not present during their surgery and was out of the country during that period and that his son possibly did their surgeries. Despite no cogent evidence, the GMC entertained these seemingly vexatious and personal complaints and ordered a full court hearing on the matter.
A complete well planned 3-prong attack was adopted by the BBC team and offers to settle with money were sent again. The patient’s names have been disclosed by Litigant’s team herself in their blog.
Sandy Miller, the first patient, is a skiing instructor in Switzerland, a high-end sport needing precision vision ( www.mountainrelish.com ). He had been openly blackmailing (evidence made available), asking for money from the clinic, at the behest that there was cheaper treatment available at the time and he paid more. He first lodged a complaint in the General Optical Council, the GOC against Dr.Jindal’s assistant, to blackmail for payment and then later apologized to him for making a false complaint (apology letter available with us).
Litigant then wrote to the GMC on Miller’s behalf to start a hearing against Dr. Jindal stating that Miller’s eyes were fine, Dr.Jindal did not operate on him. No evidence was provided on this and no reason was discernible why Miller realized this 7 years after surgery and never mentioned this in hundreds of his emails in these 7 years seeking £500 refund on price match. During the hearing, a lot of loopholes in Millers stories were found including him admitting that he knew Dr Jindal was his surgeon (earlier denied) and that he was consented by Dr.Jindal, but that he believed that there were two people in the room. He admitted that he could not see either of those two people during surgery, but that Dr.Jindals voice came from his foot side during surgery and the voice from behind his head was that of Pakistani accent, which was Dr Jindal’s assistant. He hence built a story that this was the reason that he hence believed Dr Jindal did not do his surgery.
During cross examination, Miller was caught out & blurted out that actually there were three people in the room including Dr.Jindal. When asked why he said two people initially, he stated that he meant he meant “two significant” people upon which even the jury was shocked and the manipulation was on the wall. GMC’s own expert confirmed that there was no way Miller could see Jindal or his assistant during surgery due to the nature of the surgery.
Miller was asked if he saw Dr Jindal’s son or his assistant doing surgery on him, to which he stated that how could he see anybody during the time of his own eye surgery!! Moreover, in 2011, when Miller’s surgery occurred, Dr.Jindal’s son was 4 years old and unlikely to have done the surgery, as reported in various news articles.
The second patient, Patient-B, was a carpenter turned boxer, Greg Brady. He claimed that Dr. Jindal was in Spain when he was operated upon and that he realized this a few years later when watching an interview of Dr.Prashant Jindal on TV. He said that he has gone blind and presented pictures of massively injured eyes and face, which are found to be post-boxing injuries. Litigant & her team had earlier lodged false complaints with the police with same issue and owing to pressure from the BBC, the Metropolitan police appointed its top detectives on the unbelievable case.
Sadly for Brady and Litigant, videos were found of Mr.Brady walking perfectly well on the busy streets of London. These videos were played in the hearing and left the entire public gallery in the hearing shell shocked (copies of the video to be shared soon). Also found were numerous pictures posted by Mr.Brady on social media showing how happy and clear-visioned he was after his eye surgery. Although he removed the photos when lodging the false complaint, these were dug out online from google cache (Brady was shown and asked about them in court- to which no plausible answer was available). Pictures included him driving sports cars after surgery, mentioning his great vision, taking dogs for a stroll and almost another 100 pictures from social media post-surgery. He had also posted Instagram posts with semi – nude pictures of himself saying that he was feeling on top of the world and on cross examination mentioned “I am vain- what’s your problem.”
Sufficient evidence was also found that Dr.Jindal was in the country and operated on him and another ten patients the same day. Eight months later, the police dismissed the case, but surprisingly, took no action against Mr.Brady for the false complaint.
He was cross examined on these by Dr.Jindal’s lawyers and conceded that they were his pictures and clicked after surgery. On being asked “How could you walk in the streets of London as seen in the video”, he answered “I walk with my legs, not with my eyes”, breaking the media gallery into laughter. Brady knew his game was over.
Dr.Jindal’s lawyers provided all the above evidence to the GMC, including that of police along with CCTV footage, photos, and witnesses of him being in the country and of operating on the day. However, despite the plethora of evidence, the GMC refused to dismiss the case.
GMC appointed a leading eye surgeon as an expert on the cases, whose reports on both cases (copies available with us) confirmed that there was no lack of care or duty and that the treatment was done perfectly by Dr.Prashant Jindal.
The case was filed by GMC in MPTS (Medical Practitioners Tribunal), a court that belongs to and is accountable to the GMC. Instead of protecting the truth and investigating, the GMC instead sued the doctor in its own court and appointed a prosecution lawyer to do his utmost to erase the doctor from the register.
The hearing was widely published and was attended by all leading media houses. Both patients admitted during their evidence that they were set up by the BBC & were provided audio-visual recording equipment by Ms.Litigant and coached on extracting something that she could use. All the BBCs recordings were played and showed the patients to be guilty of misleading the court, leaving a pale Ms. Litigant in the middle of the hearing.
The GMC fielded the top & highest-paid barrister of the country, as the prosecutor, who without any evidence, alleged that Dr.Jindal was not in the country during surgery and that all his defense evidence & documents, including even the credit card statements, were false. He had regular meetings with BBC’s Ms. Litigant throughout the hearing, something completely against the norms.
On the last day of the hearing, instead of giving the judgment, the jury informed that during the course of the hearing, all members of the jury had been repeatedly approached by Litigant’s team in their hotel, and also through emails & through their social media accounts and were threatened to give judgment against Dr. Jindal or face media attacks. Dr Jindal’s lawyer stated that if this was a criminal court, Ms.Litigant and her colleague should have been arrested (not done so far).
The judgment has been delayed till September due to the approaches of Litigant’s team to influence the judgment. Interestingly, despite us attending, we were not aware of this complaint of the jury, but only found out after Litigant’s team published it on their blog and we then cross checked it with the GMC by calling them, who confirmed. However, despite numerous emails, they have not provided reasons for the same and we have made a FOI legal request now.
Despite numerous efforts, Dr.Jindal did not reply. We then contacted Ms.Litigant’s boss and have received a threatening email asking for my managers details and threatening me with a defamation suit. We also contacted a doctor who is endorsed by Ms.Litigants colleague. Instead of the doctor, we received a reply from his lawyer threatening us though agreeing that the colleague had close connections with them for years.
It is noteworthy that despite only about 5% of the doctors in the UK being Asians (mainly Indians & Pakistanis), they account for almost 50% of the MPTS cases. Many doctors are unable to afford or fight against the powerful GMC and surrender their registration rather than fighting back. Support is pouring in for Dr Prashant Jindal from all quarters who has stood his ground with defiance and dignity.
The acceptance of such an unbelievable case in the GMC, thanks to efforts of Litigant of the BBC, opens the floodgates to a flurry of cases as it legitimizes vexatious complaints that any patient 10 years down the line can allege that his surgeon did not operate on him but it was the surgeon’s assistant or the surgeon’s son who did it, and seek milllions in compensation. The GMC, UK will fully support the allegations and fight tooth and nail to prove the person right and the doctor wrong.
Is there a problem with this press release? Contact the source provider Comtex at: TheRightTwist.com
The LondonJournal.co.uk News Department was not involved in the creation of this content.