Dr Mohammad MF Siddiqui

Mr N Alizai is such a big liar and disgusting person, in my honest opinion, that he should not be working as a doctor any where in the world. But dishonest GMC will not take any action against such a liar because Mr Alizai did the job GMC, on its behalf, wanted him to do against me. Such a rotten system of GMC and MPTS justice!!! It will take me many blogs to fully explain how this sickening doctor acted in my case. I will explain some in this blog. Mr Alizai refused to disclose conflict of interest (we worked together for more than a year in the same department of pediatric surgery at Leeds General Infirmary Leeds England, as registrars).  Mr Alizai didn't disclose that he had not performed plastibell circumcisions in his 26 years of professional life. Mr Alizai didn't disclose how many circumcisions he had performed by any method in preceding two years. Mr Alizai wrote an expert report on  Mr Alizai gave expert opinion out of his field of expertise. A...

This disgusting doctor has personal enmity with me. He and I worked together in Leeds General Infirmary for more than a year in the same department as registrars in pediatric surgery. One on-call day, he admitted a girl with possible acute appendicitis. Unfortunately, this girl had previously been operated upon for torsion of ovary on other side and was left with one ovary. Instead of getting an urgent ultrasound scan to rule out torsion of the only remaining ovary, Mr Alizai admitted this girl for observation. She remained on the ward for many hours. Also Mr Alizai failed to read the red alert on the case notes that in case of any such painful episode child needed to be referred immediately to gynecology team. When I started the night shift on-call on the same day, I realised this mistake and informed the gynae team who were very upset on this girl being admitted and nothing had been done. There was one other example when Mr Alizai failed to prescribe cardiac antibiot...

I have been labelled by MPTS panel as a callous doctor. Unfortunately, law and justice in this country can easily be manipulated by the authorities. Mr Woodward, acting as professional witness, in my case, gave an inaccurate unprofessional advice to panel members. When he was asked by panel members how to perform re do plastibell circumcision, he didn't have a clue and his wrong statement was belied by the statement given by child's mother. Mr Woodward should have been open and frank to tell the panel members that he had never performed plastibell circumcision in his life, not to mention of redo plastibell circumcision. Mr Woodward's understanding of redo circumcision meant cutting away more foreskin and therefore leaving less skin over penis i.e. possibility of requiring skin grafting over penis. Shame on him!! Some one who never performed plastibell circumcision in his professional life and drawing wrong conclusions should be ashamed of hi...

In my case, a witness of fact, professional witness from Bristol Children Hospital, Mr M Woodward, was produced by GMC. This Pediatric urologist didn't know how to perform revision circumcision by plastibell method. He described wrong way of the procedure and misinformed the panel. Statement of the mother of child, from Bath, belied his professional ability. That child received inaccurate, misleading and insufficient advice from this children hospital pediatric surgical team. Mr Woodward also acknowledged that a particular advice was helpful to preclude complication and hospital operation. Mr W also failed to disclose conflict of interest to the panel members. This was another example of his dishonesty in my opinion. When I informed the panel members about this conflict of interest, unfortunately, chair of the panel, Mr Donnelly, a bias and a crooked person, told a lie that Mr W was only a professional witness and therefore conflict of interest doesn't apply to him. He was ign...

GMC had accused me of not having Indemnity Insurance for providing circumcision in private practice.   None of my patients had ever complained for lack of Indemnity Insurance.   Indemnity insurance is not a statutory requirement. Against personal beliefs and values, one should not be forced to acquire Indemnity Insurance particularly when it's not a statutory requirement.

There were so many irregularities in my case on part of GMC and MPTS, that it will require many pages to write a full account.   GMC and CQC, care quality commission, provided cover to each other on their own wrongdoings in my case. These bodies refused to disclose requested information in the MPTS hearings.   GMC was consulted before setting up mobile circumcision practice. GMC advisor on phone gave wrong and inadequate information. The minutes of such phone calls were not disclosed by GMC despite multiple requests. Similarly CQC also gave wrong advice on phone and refused to disclose minutes of phone conversation. CQC in one email also advised erroneously, contrary to CQC's position in the hearing. Following is the excerpt of such an email (October 2013) correspondence with CQC:   I wrote, " Details of the enquiry : I provide mobile circumcision service for mainly muslim population primarily for children at their homes. I have received co...