Date of Professional Conduct Committee Hearing: Name of respondent doctor: Num#er on Register: Registered 'ualifications: Panel:

30 May 2002

Kaul, Ric ard !r"un 32$03%& M( () *$%% +ond Mr ) a, -C airman. Dr !nderson Ms Hi##s Dr Hine Mr Da/id 0effreys 1C +inda 1uinn Con/iction -Resumed earing.

Dr Montgomery +egal !ssessor: Committee )ecretary: 2ype of Case: Representation: 3MC: 2 e Council ,as represented #y Mr !drian Der#ys ire, Counsel, instructed #y 4ield 4is er 5ater ouse, )olicitors to t e Council Doctor: Dr Kaul ,as not present and ,as not represented6 C arge: 72 at you ,ere on 22 4e#ruary 200* in t e Cro,n Court at Central Criminal Court con/icted of manslaug ter6 8ou ,ere sentenced to si9 mont s imprisonment, suspended for t,el/e mont s67 Determination: :n 22 4e#ruary 200* at t e Central Criminal Court Dr Kaul ,as con/icted #y a "ury of t e offence of manslaug ter and sentenced to si9 mont s imprisonment suspended for t,el/e mont s6 2 e #asic circumstances leading up to is con/iction ,ere: *6 :n $ Marc *$$$ a patient, Mrs (, under,ent dental treatment at a dental practice e o,ned at * (alls Pond Road, +ondon N*6 2 e treatment ,as to #e carried out #y a dentist, , o ,as also medically 'ualified, , ile Dr Kaul;s function ,as to administer intra/enous sedation to Mrs (, and e did so6 26 !t t e end of t e treatment Mrs ( suffered a cardiac arrest6 ) e did not regain consciousness and died in ospital on *< Marc *$$$6

36 2 e cause of deat ,as gi/en #y t e pat ologist as *a. ypo9ic #rain in"ury *#. asystolic cardiac arrest during anaest etic6 =6 2 e ypo9ic #rain in"ury and t e cardiac arrest ,ere caused #y Dr Kaul;s failure ade'uately to monitor Mrs (;s #lood o9ygen le/el , ic ad fallen during er treatment6 2 is failure amounted to gross negligence6 >t is clear t at Mrs ( ,as ea/ily sedated6 !part from t e need for t e careful monitoring of any patient , ile under suc sedation, t ere ,as a need for additional care in t e case of Mrs ( #ecause s e suffered from a degree of o#esity6 2 e con/iction demonstrates t at Dr Kaul failed ade'uately to monitor Mrs (;s condition, ,it t e tragic conse'uences t at follo,ed6 >ndeed, despite is denial of responsi#ility at is trial, Dr Kaul as said in documents su#mitted to t e Committee: ?:n t e $ Marc *$$$ > ad a duty of care to Mrs (6 > ,as grossly negligent in deli/ering t at duty and as a result Mrs ( died6 > accept full and total responsi#ility for my actions t at day and accept ,it out reser/ation t e guilty /erdict deli/ered on 22 4e#ruary 200* at t e Central Criminal Court6@ ?> ,ould also liAe to apologise to t e profession for not maintaining t e standards t at are to #e e9pected of its mem#ers6 >n #e a/ing t e ,ay t at > did on $ Marc > #roug t t e profession into disrepute and for t at > am deeply sorry6@ 2 e Committee a/e considered t e full transcript of t e trial "udge;s summing up and are no, fully a,are of t e circumstances , ic o#tained in t e practice at t e material time6 2 e Committee a/e also taAen into account Dr Kaul;s apology to t e family of Mrs (, is e9pressions of remorse and t e se/eral testimonials from doctors and patients to is ot er,ise competence and good c aracter6 2 e Committee a/e #orne in mind t eir o/erriding duty to protect t e pu#lic interest #y preser/ing pu#lic trust in t e profession and maintaining ig standards of conduct as ,ell as protecting mem#ers of t e pu#lic6 2 e Committee a/e also #alanced t e need to protect t e pu#lic interest in t is ,ay against t e conse'uences of any order t at ,ould pre/ent Dr Kaul from continuing to practise6 2 e circumstances of Dr Kaul;s con/iction of t e offence of manslaug ter demonstrated not only gross negligence on is part #ut a gra/e departure from t e standards , ic t e pu#lic as a rig t to e9pect of mem#ers of t e medical profession, as Dr Kaul imself acAno,ledges6 2 e Committee are satisfied t at neit er conditions nor a furt er period of suspension from practice ,ould #e sufficient to meet t e

gra/ity of t e offence Dr Kaul committed, or to protect t e pu#lic interest in t e ,ay t ey a/e descri#ed6 2 e Committee a/e accordingly concluded t at t ey a/e no option #ut to direct t e Registrar to erase Dr Kaul;s name from t e Medical Register6 Ha/ing in/ited and eard su#missions from you as to , et er t ey s ould maAe an order for immediate suspension of Dr Kaul;s registration under )ection 3% of t e Medical !ct *$%3, t e Committee again paid careful regard to t e circumstances of t e offence and material su#mitted to t em #y Dr Kaul6 2 ey are satisfied t at it is necessary for t e protection of mem#ers of t e pu#lic and in t e #est interests of Dr Kaul for suc an order to #e made6 2 e effect of t e foregoing order and t e direction for erasure is t at Dr Kaul;s registration ,ill #e suspended from t e Medical Register from t e date t at t is notice is deemed to a/e #een ser/ed upon im and unless e e9ercises is rig ts of appeal, is name ,ill #e erased from t e Register 2% days after t at date6 2 e :rder imposed #y t e >nterim :rders Committee is ere#y re/oAed6