Superintendent Pharmacist Suspended for Practising Without Indemnity Insurance for Nearly Four Years

Date of Decision: October 10, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Failed to ensure appropriate professional indemnity insurance (PII) was in place from 1 May 2013 to 16 February 2017.
Made four annual declarations to the GPhC falsely confirming he had PII.
Misled the GPhC by stating he had insurance when he did not.
Acted without integrity in failing to confirm or secure PII while practising as a superintendent pharmacist.

Outcome: Six-month suspension from the register.

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 1 – Make patients your first concern
Standard 6.1 – Act with honesty and integrity to maintain public trust and confidence
Standard 6.5 – Meet accepted standards of personal and professional conduct
Standard 6.6 – Comply with legal and professional requirements and accepted guidance
Standard 7.9 – Ensure all work is covered by appropriate professional indemnity cover

Case Summary

Allegations

The central allegation in this case concerned the registrant, a pharmacist and superintendent of a London-based community pharmacy, who practised without professional indemnity insurance (PII) for nearly four years. During that period, from May 2013 to February 2017, he also made four annual renewal declarations to the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC), falsely confirming that appropriate indemnity arrangements were in place.

Initially, the GPhC brought forward a dishonesty allegation, which was later amended to an allegation of acting “without integrity” based on the registrant’s witness statement. The GPhC maintained that his conduct undermined the trust and confidence the public and the regulator place in registered professionals.

The registrant admitted the factual basis of the allegations: that he had no PII during the specified period and that he had made misleading declarations. However, he denied acting without integrity, arguing he had genuinely believed he had the necessary insurance in place and had confused Public Liability Insurance (PLI) with PII.

Findings

The GPhC panel found that the registrant’s conduct amounted to misconduct. He had failed in his professional obligation to ensure his work—and that of any staff under his supervision—was covered by indemnity insurance. This failure was not a one-off but persisted across four years. Despite annual prompts during the registration process, he did not check or confirm his cover.

Key findings included:

The registrant ended his NPA membership (which included PII) in May 2013 but failed to understand or verify the implications.
He mistakenly assumed that his Public Liability Insurance was sufficient and relied on the old PII certificate on his office wall.
He admitted he had not read his renewal declarations carefully and accepted he had misled his regulator four times.
He failed to take steps to confirm his insurance, even when he stopped receiving PII renewal notices.

While the panel accepted he genuinely believed he had appropriate insurance, they emphasised that such a belief was not sufficient for a responsible professional, especially one in a senior and supervisory role.

The panel acknowledged that his misunderstanding was not deliberate or reckless, but the failures still fell far below the standards expected of a registered pharmacist.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The panel found the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both personal and public grounds:

Personal Grounds:

The registrant accepted his failings, expressed remorse, and provided evidence of insight.
He implemented a system to manage insurance renewals, albeit informal (a personal notebook).
The panel was reassured that he had gained a better understanding of his obligations and considered the risk of repetition to be low.

Public Grounds:

Public confidence in pharmacy professionals depends on knowing appropriate safeguards like indemnity insurance are in place.
The GPhC’s regulatory system depends on truthful declarations—this was breached four times.
The panel emphasised that failing to uphold basic professional standards undermines public trust, regardless of whether patients were harmed.

They concluded:

“The public must be reassured that misconduct of this sort is not acceptable… that reassurance comes by a finding of impairment.”

Sanction

In determining the appropriate sanction, the panel weighed both aggravating and mitigating factors.

Aggravating factors:

Nearly four years of practising without insurance.
Repeated false declarations to the GPhC.
Breaches of multiple professional standards.
Placed patients at significant financial risk should a claim have arisen.

Mitigating factors:

No evidence of actual harm to patients.
Prompt action to rectify the situation once discovered.
Demonstrated remorse and insight.
22 years of previously unblemished practice.
Positive testimonials from peers and members of the public.
Voluntarily stepped back from active pharmacy work.

The GPhC panel ultimately decided on a six-month suspension, considering this an appropriate and proportionate response to mark the seriousness of the failings and protect public confidence in the profession.

They ruled out a conditions of practice order, noting that the misconduct involved a fundamental ethical lapse, not a skills gap, and therefore conditions would not be sufficient. A warning was also deemed inadequate due to the duration and gravity of the misconduct.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Indemnity insurance is not optional – Every pharmacy professional must understand and verify their PII status. It is a core requirement and not simply administrative.
Assumptions are not enough – Confusing insurance types or assuming cover is in place without confirmation does not meet professional standards.
Declarations carry weight – Misleading your regulator, even unintentionally, undermines the integrity of the profession. Read and understand what you are signing.
Integrity means accountability – Acting with integrity involves making reasonable inquiries, especially when something changes—like ending a membership that provides key cover.
Insight and action matter – While this case involved serious failings, the registrant’s insight, remorse, and steps to prevent recurrence contributed to a lesser sanction.
Superintendents bear extra responsibility – Those in leadership or ownership roles must set the standard for compliance and cannot afford lapses in fundamental duties.

This case serves as a crucial reminder that maintaining professional standards is not just about clinical competence but includes administrative vigilance and ethical clarity.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.