Kent veterinary surgeon restored to RCVS Register

Please note: This is an archived news story. Mr Ranes Kumar Sanyal MRCVS was restored to the RCVS Register of Members on 22 May 2007 and he is therefore currently entitled to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the UK.

Kent-based veterinary surgeon Mr Ranes Kumar Sanyal BVSc&AH MSc DTVM was restored to the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons by the College's Disciplinary Committee at a hearing yesterday (21 May 2007).

The Disciplinary Committee had instructed Mr Sanyal's name to be removed from the Register in May 2005, having found him guilty on five of six charges of disgraceful professional conduct. The charges (PDF 18Kb) related to a lack of proper management and treatment of animals' injured limbs, dishonesty to clients, representations to clients that bills for uninsured animals could be certified against insured animals, and the false certification of a proposed insurance claim. Such was the serious nature of Mr Sanyal's offences that the Committee deliberated long and hard before deciding to allow his application for restoration.

Mr Sanyal had appealed to the Privy Council against the decision to remove his name from the Register, but he later withdrew the appeal and his name was removed from the Register on 10 March 2006.

Yesterday's restoration hearing was resumed from 6 February 2007, when proceedings had been adjourned at the request of Mr Sanyal's counsel.

The Committee felt that at the first restoration hearing (February), Mr Sanyal had failed to convince them that he had genuinely accepted the seriousness of his actions and that he had presented scant evidence of any action to improve his clinical knowledge and practical skills.

However, yesterday the Committee felt that Mr Sanyal now accepted both the findings and appropriateness of the sanction. The Committee also felt that the likelihood of a recurrence of the dishonesty was low.

Disciplinary Committee Vice-Chairman, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: "Mr Sanyal has presented the Committee with satisfactory evidence, not only with regard to his attitude to the seriousness of the original offences but of further appropriate training in those areas in which he was considered by the Committee to be deficient, in particular pharmacy and bandaging.

"The Committee is satisfied that the welfare of animals will not be prejudiced if Mr Sanyal's name is restored to the Register."

The Committee also noted the demonstration of confidence in Mr Sanyal's abilities shown by his supporters, both by their presence at the restoration appeals and by means of writing to the College.

The Committee did not consider that it would be in the public interest to prolong Mr Sanyal's removal from the Register and that, as a single practitioner, the financial penalty to Mr Sanyal was proportionately greater than it would have been had he been a member of a multi-vet practice. In addition, to prolong the striking-off would negate the benefit Mr Sanyal has gained from his continuing professional development, potentially resulting in a loss of skill.