Preethi Suresh
Introduction
Dr Preethi Suresh is a doctor in training registered with the General Medical Council (GMC) who was suspended from the medical register for twelve months by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal in May 2026, after admitting that she dishonestly scanned QR codes to register attendance at a cardiology training day she never attended, generated a certificate of attendance, and uploaded it to her training e-portfolio. The tribunal imposed an immediate order of suspension and directed a review before the year ends .
Background Information
The incident dates to 29 February 2024, at a face-to-face East of England cardiology training day. Suresh was, by the tribunal’s later finding, clinically competent with no concerns about her patient care and regarded as a good doctor. But she was not new to dishonesty findings: in 2021 she had received a warning for dishonesty arising in similar circumstances, a fact that would prove decisive at the sanction stage two years later .
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated (regulatory), admitted. The allegation was admitted in full and found proved by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal applying the civil standard of proof in a fitness-to-practise process. It is not a criminal conviction, and nothing in the fetched record establishes any prosecution.
On or around 29 February 2024, Suresh scanned a QR code to confirm her registration at the training day she had not attended. She then scanned a second QR code and completed the feedback form, which automatically generated a certificate of attendance. She uploaded that certificate to her training e-portfolio, knowing she had not attended and that it would let her falsely claim attendance and the corresponding Continuing Professional Development hours. The tribunal found each of these actions dishonest .
The tribunal treated the case as sitting at the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness despite its narrow facts. It identified an element of premeditation — having scanned the first code she must have planned to scan the second and upload the certificate — several separate dishonest acts, and conduct that undermined a system designed to protect the public by monitoring professional training and competence. Combined with the 2021 warning for similar dishonesty, it found a real and continuing risk of repetition and impairment engaging all three limbs of public protection .
The tribunal suspended her registration for twelve months, directed a review hearing before the period ends, and imposed an immediate order of suspension .
Public Reaction and Consequences
The concrete consequence is the twelve-month suspension, effective immediately from the 15 May 2026 decision. The case is recorded in MedicWatch’s listing of doctors suspended in 2026; no employer statement or public comment from Suresh appears in the fetched record beyond the determination .
The tribunal accepted mitigation on all sides but the dishonesty: she admitted the allegations from the outset and accepted her conduct was dishonest, showed remorse, and undertook reflective work and courses on ethics, probity and professionalism. It noted she derived no actual benefit from the conduct and that no patient was harmed. What it did not accept was that insight had matured — it found her insight remained limited and developing, which is what carried the risk finding .
Current Status
Suresh is a suspended doctor under a twelve-month order imposed on 15 May 2026, in force immediately, with a review directed before it expires. Her registration status will be reassessed there; the tribunal’s finding of a continuing repetition risk, anchored to the 2021 warning, means the review will look for demonstrated change rather than repeat the admissions .
Impact on Their Career/Life
For a doctor in training, a dishonesty finding tied to the training infrastructure itself — attendance records and the e-portfolio that evidences competence — attaches to every future stage of progression. The QR-code method gave the case its specific shape: the certificate was generated automatically, but the tribunal was clear the dishonesty lay in the plan to claim credit for a day she skipped. With a prior warning for similar conduct on the record, the twelve-month term and immediate effect signal that a second dishonesty finding had moved her from correctable to genuinely at risk of erasure if the review is not satisfied .