Pharmacist Sunil Kumar Lakhani, registration number 2038518, will return to practice under six-month conditions, following a year’s suspension by the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) for providing Covid fit-to-fly certificates that “were not legitimate”.
At a review hearing on April 14, the GPhC’s FtP committee heard that after principal hearings in September and November 2024, Lakhani was suspended for “12 months with review”.
At the subsequent review last December, Lakhani’s suspension was extended by 4 months and set to expire on May 4, 2026.
Read more: ‘Deplorable’: Online pharmacist suspended over 70k prescriptions
The latest hearing document said Lakhani had “begun to remediate and has taken steps to prevent a repetition, through reflective practice”.
But it found he provided fit-to-fly certificates to customers when he knew that samples “were not or would not be tested” and that “the fit-to-fly certificates provided to patients were not legitimate”.
Lakhani was also found to have lied about not knowing you needed “United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) accreditation for taking swabs” and afterwards lying about having applied “for this accreditation”.
Between the 11 to 22 of February 2022, he was found to have not kept a record of Covid-19 “tests completed at the pharmacy” and of “courier services used for Covid-19 tests”.
Read more: Pharmacist suspended for contacting patients on WhatsApp
The registrant was also found to have given out fit-to-fly documentation “certifying Circular 1 Health testing service had found their rapid antigen test negative for Covid-19”.
He also “accepted only cash payments for Covid-19 tests” and recorded these transactions as “no sale”.
And on February 22 2022, he was also seen to place a “used swab taken for a Covid-19 test back into its packaging”.
Remediation
The GPhC recognised that Lakhani “has shown insight” into what happened, which included that he had “acknowledged what happened, understands why it happened, and has developing insight into the impact of what happened”.
Read more: Pharmacist suspended for failing to report driving convictions
And it said the registrant had shown willingness to “remediate” and “has taken steps to prevent a repetition”, such as “through reflective practice using the Gibbs Reflective Cycle, Talking Therapies and two CPPE courses”.
But the committee found that despite these actions there is “continuing risk of repetition” as the registrant has “not undertaken any ethical or integrity training nor has he provided sufficient evidence of ongoing continuing professional development”.
Read more: Pharmacist warned for accessing ex-partner’s medical records
He also did not provide “adequate testimonials”, though the committee acknowledged there may have been “difficulty” finding them due to “shame” and that he was “not in paid employment”.
It then said that this “risk of repetition” could lead to “a risk to public protection”.
Read more: Pharmacy tech suspended again after using slur against colleague
And though there was “no evidence of harm caused”, giving “assurance to customers that their samples had been tested for Covid-19 by a laboratory and that they were consequently fit-to-fly” when he had not, “created a risk to the public”.
The committee concluded that the “wider public interest requires a finding of impairment“ because of the “risk of future harm” and need to “promote professional standards”.
It decided on sanctions after the impairment decision, which will be imposed “for a period of six months”.
Read more: Indemnity: Pharmacist suspended again over ‘dishonest’ claims
These include the registrant working with a GPhC-approved “workplace supervisor” who is also a “registered pharmacist”.
He must create a “personal development plan” with the supervisor who must also send a report to the GPhC “every month”.
He must not work as a superintendent pharmacist, and must notify the GPhC of other conditions of how he is working including “hours”, the “contact details of [his] employer” and “if [he applies] for work as a pharmacist outside Great Britain”.
Read more: ‘Cavalier’ online pharmacy owner suspended after patient death
He must also divulge these conditions in writing when doing any paid or unpaid work for which he must be registered with the GPhC, including when applying for employment, to all employers or contractors, superintendent pharmacists, responsible pharmacists, line managers, workplace supervisors, and accountable officers for controlled drugs.
He also needs to send the GPhC a copy when one of these people is notified.
The committee decided that another suspension would be “disproportionate” and that “public interest would be better served by the Registrant being supported back into safe and effective practice”.
Read the determination in full here.
