31 Jan 2020
Vet had previously been reprimanded and warned about his conduct in relation to neutering surgery and related clinical note-keeping, and communication with clients.
Image © Andy Dean / Adobe Stock
An RCVS disciplinary committee (DC) has directed the registrar to remove Luton-based veterinary surgeon Rahul Chandulal Shah from the register for repeated clinical failures.
Mr Shah had denied two charges. The first was that he allowed a kitten to be anaesthetised without having first undertaken a clinical examination of the animal.
It also alleged that, having failed to locate a second testicle during the surgery, Mr Shah failed to contact the owner to inform her of this failure and to discuss the treatment options arising as a result, before ending his attempts at the castration.
The charge further alleges that Mr Shah failed to devise an adequate plan for the completion of the castration, failed to take adequate steps to ensure the owner was fully informed of the details of the surgery, and failed to make adequate clinical notes in relation to the kitten.
The second charge was that, in relation to the conduct in charge one, Mr Shah failed to have adequate regard to previous advice and warnings from the RCVS about his conduct in relation to neutering surgery and related clinical note-keeping, and communication with clients.
In particular, this related to a reprimand issued on 23 September 2016 by the DC following its finding of disgraceful conduct with regards to his discharge of a dog following castration in 2014, and advice issued to Mr Shah by letter on 21 March 2018 by the college’s preliminary investigation committee regarding circumstances surrounding canine spay surgery performed by him in 2016.
In finding both charges proved, the DC was satisfied that Mr Shah’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and consequently that it amounted to serious professional misconduct.
With regards to mitigating factors, the DC accepted that the conduct was not premeditated, that there was no financial gain and that, notwithstanding the contents of charge two, the first charge was a single and isolated incident.
The DC’s full facts and findings can be found on the RCVS website.