The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions

Privy Council Appeal No. 16 of 1997

Dr. Marta Stefan Appellant

v.

The General Medical Council Respondent

FROM

THE HEALTH COMMITTEE OF THE

THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

---------------

ORAL JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL

COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL,

Delivered the 23rd July 1997

------------------

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

Lord Cooke of Thorndon

Lord Clyde

  ·[Delivered by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead]

-------------------------

1. This is an appeal by Dr. Marta Stefan from a decision of the Health Committee of the General Medical Council given on 24th February 1997, whereby the Committee judged that Dr. Stefan's fitness to practise was seriously impaired.  The Committee noted with disappointment that the appellant had declined to agree to conditions concerning medical supervision she had been invited to accept.  The particular conditions related to a refusal to continue to attend a psychiatrist.  The Committee directed that Dr. Stefan's registration should be suspended for twelve months.

2. The hearing of 24th February 1997 was the seventh occasion on which the Health Committee had considered the appellant's case.  The first effective hearing was four years ago in June 1993.  On that occasion and on all subsequent occasions the Committee found that the appellant's fitness to practise was seriously impaired on health grounds.  In June 1993   the   Committee  was  deeply  concerned  about  the appellant's condition and her lack of insight.  Conditions were imposed.  An appeal to their Lordships' Board against that decision was dismissed in December 1993.  Under section 40(5) of the Medical Act 1983 an appeal lies to Her Majesty in Council from the Health Committee only on a question of law.  Their Lordships' Board humbly advised Her Majesty that they were unable to find that the appeal raised any question of law.

3. A further hearing took place in June 1994, and again the appellant's registration was made conditional on compliance with conditions.  In February 1995, at a further hearing, and because of the appellant's failure to agree to conditions regarding medical supervision, her registration was directed to be suspended for eight months.  The appellant appealed to their Lordships' Board and the appeal was dismissed for the same reason as on the earlier occasion.  On 21st February 1996, at a further hearing, the Committee directed that the appellant's registration be suspended for a further twelve months.

4. On this, the third appeal by Dr. Stefan to their Lordships' Board, the appellant appeared in person and advanced, in her case and in her written statement which she handed in, a number of points.  She said amongst other matters that there are no health grounds to stop her working; that her only health problem is a mild cardiac problem in the form of occasional arrhythmia; that she is fit for sedentary work and that work is recommended for her by a cardiologist.  She alleged breach of regulations and unlawful conduct on the part of the Committee, and abuse and breach of statutory duty on various grounds.  She said that her case should never have come before the Health Committee at all.

5. Suffice to say their Lordships see no question of law in any of Dr. Stefan's points.  There was evidence before the Health Committee on which it was open to the Committee to reach the conclusion it did in view of her refusal to accept supervision from a psychiatrist.

6. Their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty that this appeal ought to be dismissed.

© CROWN COPYRIGHT as at the date of judgment.