Doctor faces inquiry for circumcising boy without adequate consent

AN Asian-origin doctor based in Nottingham, who was previously suspended for circumcising a baby without his mother’s consent, will again face inquiry after he circumcised a boy without his father’s agreement.

The General Medical Council (GMC) will launch a new inquiry into the procedure carried out by Balvinder Mehat, of the Bakersfield Medical Centre in Nottingham, BBC reports.

In the latest case, the boy - who was seven at the time - was circumcised on October 19, 2022, when his mother took him to the doctor.

The boy's parents are separated and his father was not aware. His mother allegedly had signed two disclaimer forms, claiming she had sole parental responsibility.

BBC reports that there is a mismatch between the date metioned in the disclaimer forms and the day circumcision was done.

His father got to know only when the boy went to stay with him during a half-term break, a few days after the procedure.

The boy experienced deep pain and was taken to the Royal Derby Hospital.

He had undergone Plastibell circumcision, where a plastic ring is inserted between the foreskin and the head of the penis.

Royal Derby Hospital carried out an emergency procedure to remove the Plastibell ring and also his foreskin as it had become infected.

The father approached the GMC, which had investigated but closed the complaint as there was no "realistic prospect of proving that Dr Mehat's fitness to practice was impaired".

When he sought a review, the GMC found that its earlier decision may have been flawed and decided to revisit the case.

Mehat has said he will cooperate with the review and claimed the procedure was carried out correctly after taking appropriate consent.

In the earlier case, Mehat was suspended for one month in 2019 after circumcising a baby boy in 2013 without his mother’s consent.

The child was taken to the hospital by his paternal grandmother without his mother being aware.

Mehat did not, however, lose his job as a medical practitioners tribunal decided that he was “no risk to patients”.