Six-Month Suspension for Superintendent Pharmacist After Dishonest Declarations and Uninsured POM Supply

Date of Decision: August 29, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Failed to ensure professional indemnity insurance for two pharmacies over multiple months.
Submitted false declarations to the GPhC regarding indemnity arrangements.
Dispensed approximately 93 prescription-only medicines (POMs) without insurance cover.
Dishonest conduct in knowingly misleading the GPhC on multiple occasions.

Outcome: Suspension – 6 months with review

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 1 – Pharmacy professionals must provide person-centred care: Failed to consider the impact of dispensing uninsured medication on patient safety.
Standard 5 – Pharmacy professionals must use their professional judgement: Exercised poor judgement by supplying high-risk medicines without insurance.
Standard 6 – Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner: Acted dishonestly and without integrity, undermining trust in the profession.

Case Summary

Allegations

This case concerned a pharmacist who was the superintendent and director of two online pharmacy businesses – Pharmacy 1 (Haoma Pharmacy/My Private Pharmacist in Epsom) and Pharmacy 2 (My Private Pharmacist in Wimbledon). The core allegations included:

Operating both pharmacies without appropriate professional indemnity insurance over extended periods (10 months for Pharmacy 1, 12 months for Pharmacy 2).
Making three false declarations to the GPhC about having such insurance in place.
Dispensing around 93 prescription-only medicines (POMs), including high-risk drugs like Ozempic, during periods when there was no insurance.
Engaging in dishonest and misleading conduct, including knowingly submitting false declarations and failing to rectify the absence of insurance despite multiple opportunities.

Findings

The Committee found all allegations proved. The pharmacist admitted some allegations (including not maintaining insurance and dispensing uninsured), while denying others relating to dishonesty. However, the panel determined that his conduct was indeed dishonest and lacked integrity.

Key points included:

False declarations made on 16 February 2021, 20 May 2021, and 30 July 2021.
Professional indemnity insurance was cancelled in August 2020 for Pharmacy 1 and not reinstated until June 2022, following a GPhC inspection.
The registrant admitted supplying prescriptions to friends and family during the uninsured period, believing they wouldn’t sue him.
The dishonesty extended to personal indemnity insurance, which lapsed in January 2021 and was only renewed after regulatory scrutiny.

The panel concluded that the registrant “had deliberately chosen to postpone” obtaining insurance despite understanding its necessity, and “attempted to mislead the Council” on multiple occasions.

“The intention to mislead and provide false information or a false declaration was dishonest behaviour and demonstrated a lack of integrity.”

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee held that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct. It cited:

Multiple serious breaches of GPhC standards.
Dishonesty and repeated misleading declarations.
Putting patients at risk by dispensing medicines without professional cover.
Lack of insight at the time, including dismissive attitudes like “they wouldn’t sue me because they were friends”.

Despite his later compliance, the Committee concluded that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made. It also emphasized that the registrant’s actions were not isolated but formed part of a repeated pattern over many months.

Sanction

The GPhC imposed a 6-month suspension with a review, considering this proportionate and necessary to uphold professional standards. Key factors influencing the sanction included:

The seriousness and repetition of the dishonesty.
The registrant’s lack of insight at the time.
The eventual rectification of the indemnity gap.
No actual harm had occurred, and the registrant was open about the issue when inspected.

A striking-off order was deemed disproportionate, especially given the registrant’s cooperation, good character, and the lack of harm. However, the Committee warned that any recurrence or failure to demonstrate insight could lead to more severe sanctions at review.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Professional indemnity insurance is non-negotiable – Every practising pharmacist and pharmacy must have appropriate cover in place from the outset. Failure to do so exposes both patients and professionals to unacceptable risk.
Declarations to the regulator must be truthful – Dishonesty, especially in official documentation, is treated severely and can result in suspension or erasure from the register.
Integrity is central to professionalism – Misleading the regulator or taking a “low risk” approach to patient safety is fundamentally incompatible with pharmacy practice.
“Low activity” is not an excuse – Even occasional dispensing requires full regulatory compliance, including insurance.
Superintendents carry elevated responsibilities – As leaders in the profession, their conduct sets the tone for the entire pharmacy. Any lapse is viewed more seriously.
Mitigation must be genuine and timely – Post-inspection compliance, while important, does not erase past misconduct. Proactive insight and remediation are critical to avoid harsher outcomes.

This case is a powerful reminder of the expectations placed on pharmacists, particularly those in leadership roles, to uphold both the letter and spirit of GPhC standards at all times.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.