Disciplinary case dismissed against London vet

Please note
This is an archived news story.

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons this week [5 September 2007] dismissed a case against a London veterinary surgeon charged with failing in his obligations to gain informed consent from a client.

During a three-day hearing, Reza D’Ehghani MRCVS was accused of failing to discuss with his client, Stewart Bradley, a range of reasonable treatment options, likely fees and total cost of the various procedures.

The Committee heard that when Mr Bradley’s mongrel bitch, Affra, was taken ill in February 2006, he spoke on the telephone to Mr D’Ehghani, who was providing out-of-hours emergency cover for Mr Bradley’s usual practice. It was agreed that Affra should be brought to the surgery for treatment. However, the details of subsequent events described to the Committee differed markedly.

Mr Bradley stated adamantly that Mr D’Ehghani was the only veterinary surgeon present, and after giving Affra a cursory examination, provisionally diagnosed gastric dilation. He said Mr D’Ehghani told him the condition was serious enough to warrant admitting Affra and that surgery might be necessary; he then signed a blank consent form and left. Affra later underwent a successful operation to remove her stomach contents.

Mr Bradley told the Committee that at no time was he advised as to the range of treatments available or the likely cost of any surgery, and felt that Mr D’Ehghani’s subsequent bill for £4,667 was unreasonable. After he instructed his insurance company not to pay the £3,000 for which he was covered, the insurers subsequently filed a complaint against Mr D’Ehghani with the RCVS.

According to Mr D’Ehghani, however, he had explained to Mr Bradley the cost of the initial out-of-hours consultation over the telephone, he had been accompanied to the surgery by his assistant, Syd Azimi MRCVS, and it had been Mr Azimi who carried out the consultation and the subsequent surgery.

Mr D’Ehghani further stated that it was Mr Azimi who explained treatment and cost options to Mr Bradley, twice offering him a printed estimate, and that Mr Bradley then signed a consent form detailing approximate costs of £1,500 and ‘surgery if needed’.

Giving evidence, Mr Azimi fully supported Mr D’Ehghani’s version of events. The Committee also saw copies of clinical records, handwritten by both veterinary surgeons, detailing the course of treatment provided; the original documents and consent form had been scanned into the practice computer but were no longer available.

Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: “We have considered carefully the evidence that has been adduced by both parties and are not satisfied that it has been proved to the requisite standard [see note 4 below] that Mr D’Ehghani was the sole treating veterinary surgeon on the night in question.

"We recognise that Mr Bradley was under considerable stress at the time due to his dog being seriously unwell and have concluded that, whilst he was not being untruthful in his evidence, he may have been mistaken in his recollection of events. The charge is dismissed.”

For more information please contact:

Ian Holloway, Senior Communications Officer, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
020 7202 0727 / [email protected]

Notes for Editors

1. The RCVS is the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons in the UK and deals with issues of professional misconduct, maintaining the register of veterinary surgeons eligible to practise in the UK and assuring standards of veterinary education.

2. RCVS disciplinary powers are exercised through the Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees, established in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (the 1966 Act). The RCVS has authority to deal with three types of case:

a) Fraudulent registration

b) Criminal convictions

c) Allegations of disgraceful professional conduct

3. The Disciplinary Committee is a constituted judicial tribunal under the 1966 Act and follows rules of evidence similar to those used in a court of law.

4. The burden of proving an allegation falls upon the RCVS, and the RCVS must prove to the standard that the Committee is sure.

5. Further information, including the charges against Mr D’Ehghani and the Disciplinary Committee’s findings, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.