Pharmacist Suspended for Three Months Over Indemnity Insurance Failures and Dishonesty

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Fitness to Practise Committee investigated a pharmacist after it was discovered that his pharmacy had operated without professional indemnity insurance for over a decade.

Between April 2010 and November 2020, he:

1. Failed to ensure the pharmacy was properly insured.
2. Falsely declared each year from 2009 to 2020 that he had appropriate indemnity insurance.
3. Misled a GPhC inspector about the duration of the insurance lapse.
4. Sent a dishonest email to the GPhC in 2021 attempting to downplay the issue.

The matter came to light during a routine GPhC inspection in November 2020, when the inspector found that the pharmacy had no active indemnity insurance.

Findings:

The Fitness to Practise Committee found that the pharmacist’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, considering:

1. Operating Without Insurance for Over a Decade:
   • The pharmacy had no professional indemnity insurance from April 2010 to November 2020.
   • Despite this, the pharmacist declared on his annual GPhC registration renewals that he was insured.
   • The committee noted:“The registrant’s actions meant that, for over a decade, patients could have been left without recourse if harmed by the pharmacy’s services.”
2. False Declarations on Annual Registration Renewals:
   • The pharmacist repeatedly confirmed, between 2009 and 2020, that he had valid indemnity insurance.
   • These declarations were dishonest because he knew the insurance had lapsed.
   • The committee determined that:“The registrant made false declarations to the regulator year after year, demonstrating a clear pattern of dishonesty.”
3. Misleading Statements to the GPhC:
   • During a GPhC inspection in December 2020, the pharmacist told an inspector that his insurance had only lapsed in September 2020.
   • He later sent an email in January 2021 stating that the oversight had only occurred since the start of the pandemic (March/April 2020).
   • Both statements were untrue, as the pharmacy had been uninsured for over a decade.
4. Attempts to Conceal the Length of Time Without Insurance:
   • The committee ruled that the pharmacist deliberately misled the GPhC to downplay the severity of his failings.
   • The panel found:“The registrant’s dishonesty was not a one-off lapse but a sustained attempt to conceal his non-compliance.”
5. Failure to Take Responsibility as Superintendent Pharmacist:
   • As the owner and superintendent pharmacist, he was personally responsible for ensuring the pharmacy had proper indemnity insurance.
   • The committee found that he failed in this duty, placing patients and the public at risk.

GPhC Determination on Impairment:

The GPhC ruled that the pharmacist’s fitness to practise was impaired, citing:

• Sustained dishonesty over multiple years.
• Failure to uphold fundamental professional standards.
• Potential damage to public confidence in the pharmacy profession.

The committee stated:

“Patients must be able to trust that their pharmacy is operating legally and ethically. The registrant’s failure to maintain insurance and his dishonesty about it undermine that trust.”

However, the committee acknowledged that:

• The pharmacist admitted some aspects of his dishonesty and showed remorse.
• He had since put in place safeguards to ensure the pharmacy remains insured.
• He had a previously unblemished 23-year career with no regulatory concerns.

Given these factors, the committee found that:

“While the registrant has taken steps to remediate, the seriousness of the misconduct warrants regulatory action to uphold public confidence.”

Sanction:

The committee imposed a three-month suspension, considering:

• Aggravating Factors:
  • The pharmacy operated uninsured for over ten years.
  • The pharmacist repeatedly made false declarations to the GPhC.
  • He misled the GPhC inspector and attempted to conceal the true period of non-compliance.
• Mitigating Factors:
  • He admitted wrongdoing and showed insight into his actions.
  • He had no prior fitness to practise concerns in over 23 years.
  • He had taken corrective action to ensure the pharmacy remains insured.

The committee ruled that:

“A three-month suspension is necessary to mark the seriousness of the dishonesty while allowing the registrant to return to practice after demonstrating insight.”

A review hearing was not required, as the committee was satisfied that the pharmacist understood his obligations and was unlikely to repeat his misconduct.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals:

This case highlights critical lessons regarding professional integrity, regulatory compliance, and the consequences of dishonesty.

1. Pharmacists Must Ensure Their Pharmacy Is Properly Insured:
   • Operating without indemnity insurance is a serious regulatory breach.
   • Pharmacists must verify their coverage annually and not assume it is in place.
2. False Declarations on Registration Renewals Have Serious Consequences:
   • Declaring incorrect information to the GPhC can lead to suspension or removal from the register.
   • Pharmacists must take regulatory declarations seriously and ensure they are accurate.
3. Dishonesty Can Result in Professional Sanctions:
   • Attempting to conceal regulatory failings can be worse than the failing itself.
   • Being transparent and proactive in addressing mistakes is critical.
4. Superintendent Pharmacists Must Take Leadership Responsibilities Seriously:
   • Owners and superintendent pharmacists must ensure compliance with regulatory obligations.
   • Failing to manage key business functions, such as insurance, can lead to fitness to practise sanctions.

Conclusion:

This case serves as a strong reminder that honesty, regulatory compliance, and personal responsibility are fundamental to pharmacy practice.

While the pharmacist avoided removal from the register, his three-month suspension highlights the importance of integrity and ensuring professional obligations are met.

Pharmacists must always ensure that their professional declarations are truthful and that their pharmacy remains compliant with GPhC regulations.