Preston GP struck off over 'dishonest' food poisoning claims

Dr Zuber Bux has 28 days to appeal

A doctor who diagnosed cases of holiday food poisoning without enough evidence has been struck off.

A tribunal found the actions of Dr Zuber Bux, who practised in the Preston area in Lancashire, were "misleading, dishonest and financially motivated".

The panel also proved he failed to declare his wife Sehana Bux was a partner at the solicitors handling the food poisoning compensation claims.

Dr Bux was immediately suspended from practising and has 28 days to appeal.

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel heard Dr Bux, who has been unavailable for comment, received about 400 cases via AMS Solicitors in Preston between 2015 and 2017.

There is no suggestion Mrs Bux or the solicitors were involved in wrongdoing.

'Wholly deplorable'

The panel proved allegations that in four of those cases - one concerning two patients - he diagnosed food poisoning with insufficient evidence between May and September 2016.

An allegation that he failed to take adequate steps to establish whether his wife's position at the firm amounted to a conflict of interest was also proven.

MPTS tribunal chair Julia Oakford said Dr Bux's behaviour was "wholly deplorable and reprehensible".

"The holiday sickness claims misconduct involved dishonesty that was covered up, lying to solicitors, false declarations to the court, deceptive expert reports and it was financially motivated," she added.

In a statement, AMS Solicitors said Mrs Bux was never involved in any matter where her husband was the medical expert.

It said there had never been a regulatory finding against the firm or its solicitors.

It added Mrs Bux left the firm last month but said her departure was not connected to the tribunal.

'Significant risk'

The panel also found there were serious failings by Dr Bux in what was described by the General Medical Council as a "reckless and cavalier" circumcision of a 15-month-old child in 2017, which resulted in the child being taken to hospital.

The panel concluded it should not have been done in a community setting, he had not obtained adequate medical history of Patient A, who had a heart condition, and he administered incorrect doses of medicine.

"Patient A was placed at significant risk of life-threatening complications that could not be dealt with in the community," Mrs Oakford said.

Michael Hayton QC, on behalf of Dr Bux, submitted to the tribunal it was a "one-off incident" and he had conducted thousands of circumcisions within the community without complications.

The tribunal accepted this but determined his conduct amounted to serious misconduct and erasing him from the medical register was the "only proportionate sanction".