NHS Doctor Who Removed Ovaries Without Consent Banned From Seeing Women Alone

Dr Ali Shokouh-Amiri, a consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology employed by the Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, has been barred from conducting consultations with female patients without a chaperone following a High Court intervention and interim restrictions imposed by the General Medical Council (GMC). The regulatory measures, which took effect on 12 October 2026, prevent the Southend Hospital consultant from being alone with female patients except in life-threatening emergencies, while also requiring him to obtain explicit GMC approval before commencing any non-NHS medical employment. These interim conditions follow a landmark ruling at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on 28 August 2026, where Mr Justice Morris quashed elements of an earlier Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) determination from February 2025 that had controversially concluded Dr Shokouh-Amiri’s fitness to practise was not impaired despite admitting to removing two women's ovaries without their consent.  

The regulatory proceedings against Dr Shokouh-Amiri stem from his tenure as a consultant gynaecologist and Head of Gynaecological Oncology at the Princess Elizabeth Hospital in Guernsey. While employed by the Island’s Medical Specialist Group between 31 October 2016 and 31 August 2019, his clinical conduct between October 2017 and January 2019 became the subject of over 100 allegations involving six patients, identified in court documents as Patients A through F.  

During the original MPTS hearing, which concluded on 14 February 2025, the panel found 24 instances of inappropriate behaviour proven. Crucially, Dr Shokouh-Amiri admitted to removing the ovaries of both Patient C and Patient D without obtaining their informed consent. In the case of Patient D, the tribunal established that there was no clinical indication whatsoever to justify the surgical removal of her ovaries. Furthermore, the panel found proven allegations that Dr Shokouh-Amiri touched Patient D’s clitoris, rubbed or touched Patient A’s leg, kissed and hugged Patient F on two separate occasions during consultations, suggested another patient join him at a gymnasium, and repeatedly conducted intimate examinations across five patients without a chaperone present.  

Despite finding that the unconsented surgical removals and inappropriate personal remarks constituted professional misconduct, the February 2025 tribunal issued Dr Shokouh-Amiri with a formal warning rather than a suspension or erasure. The panel concluded that he had demonstrated sufficient insight into his clinical failures and posed a low risk of exposing future patients to unwarranted harm, thereby leaving him free to hold an unrestricted licence to practise.  

The lenient outcome prompted widespread public concern, including a public petition registered in 2025 demanding his removal from the NHS, which amassed more than 20,000 signatures. Concurrently, the General Medical Council launched a statutory appeal under Section 40A of the Medical Act 1983, arguing that the tribunal’s determination was manifestly insufficient to protect the public.  

Sitting at the King’s Bench Division Administrative Court ([2026] EWHC 2226 (Admin)), following hearings in October and December 2025 involving Jenni Richards KC for the GMC and Ben Rich for the respondent, Mr Justice Morris handed down his approved judgment on 28 August 2026. The GMC advanced four distinct grounds of appeal: first, that the tribunal erred in finding allegations regarding Patient B not proved; second, that the tribunal erred in dismissing several allegations concerning Patient F; third, that the panel’s legal approach to cross-admissibility regarding Patients A, D, and F was flawed; and fourth, that the panel was wrong to conclude his fitness to practise was not impaired.  

As Daily Dazzling Dawn learned from the official court record, Mr Justice Morris upheld Grounds 1 and 2 of the GMC’s appeal while dismissing Grounds 3 and 4. The High Court judge determined that the original tribunal had made clear errors of fact, reached unreasonable conclusions, and failed to properly evaluate vital evidence concerning Patient B and Patient F. Consequently, the court ordered that the case be remitted to a fresh tribunal to re-examine the factual findings regarding those two patients before making a new determination on whether Dr Shokouh-Amiri’s fitness to practise is formally impaired.  

Although Dr Shokouh-Amiri has not treated patients in Guernsey since January 2019, he was appointed as a consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology at the Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust in November 2022, working at Southend Hospital. Following the High Court ruling and pending the relisted MPTS hearing, the GMC moved to impose interim restrictions on 12 October 2026 to safeguard patients.

Addressing the regulatory intervention, a GMC spokesperson told to journalists that the council sought temporary restrictions on Dr Shokouh-Amiri’s practice while awaiting a full tribunal to decide if his fitness to practise is impaired, adding that the regulator will always act where concerns suggest patient safety or public confidence in the medical profession may be at risk.

Meanwhile, executives at the hospital trust have moved to reassure the local community regarding day-to-day clinical operations. Speaking on the consultant's employment status, Dr Christine Blanshard, Chief Medical Officer at Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, confirmed in a statement that Daily Dazzling Dawn understands reflects current hospital protocol, noting that while Dr Shokouh-Amiri remains employed by the Trust, he is not currently working in a patient-facing role.

In Guernsey, Dr Michelle Le Cheminant explained to journalists that health authorities continually review and strengthen clinical governance processes, though it remains inappropriate to comment further on individual findings while legal and tribunal proceedings remain active. A spokesperson for the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service also confirmed that the service is examining Mr Justice Morris’s judgment for institutional learning points and will relist the remitted hearing at the earliest opportunity.