Gynaecologist loses job fight after succession of blunders
A gynaecologist who worked in the West Midlands, struck off after he made a potentially life-threatening error while treating a woman who had suffered an ectopic pregnancy, has failed in a High Court bid to revive his career.
Ahmed Loutfi also left a baby with a brain injury and a depressed skull fracture after he attempted to rotate its head using forceps at the Birmingham Women's hospital in May 2013.
Dr Loutfi's disastrous mistakes began when he was a locum at the Liverpool Women's Hospital in April and May 2010, when he saw the patient twice – wrongly diagnosing her as having had a miscarriage both times.
This was despite another doctor telling her it could be an ectopic pregnancy, where the foetus starts to grow outside of the womb.
London's High Court heard Dr Loutfi then sent her home – putting her life at risk – in spite of her challenging him, and also inappropriately told the woman to 'go home and try for another baby'.
Just days after the second consultation was held, the woman had to undergo emergency surgery to remove one of her fallopian tubes after the ectopic pregnancy was discovered.
The Medical Practitioners' Tribunal, of the General Medical Council (GMC), also found Dr Loutfi made blunders when treating two other patients.
In October 2011, while working as a locum at St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, he made an inappropriate decision to go ahead with a delivery under spinal anaesthetic.
He also failed to immediately order an emergency caesarean under general anaesthetic.
The woman later had to have an emergency hysterectomy, when it became apparent during surgery that her womb had ruptured.
Dr Loutfi consistently denied having any responsibility for any misconduct in relation to all three of his patients.
But the tribunal found 54 disciplinary charges against him proved – including dishonesty for failing to reveal he was under investigation – and he was struck off the medical register in February.
Challenging the ruling at London's High Court, Dr Loutfi argued the tribunal was wrong to accept the evidence of an expert.
Representing himself, he also attacked the tribunal's factual findings against him – maintaining that he had done nothing wrong.
But, dismissing his appeal, Mr Justice Cranston said he could detect 'no flaw' in the tribunal's decision.
The judge added: "Given the evidence before it, the tribunal's factual findings, and the limited nature of the review I am charged to undertake.
"I see no error in its conclusions."
