A pharmacist who had been convicted of illegal sales of medicines and who had made inadequate arrangements for locum cover while he was on holiday has had his name removed from the register by order of the Statutory Committee.
At its meeting on November 18, 1999, the committee inquired into the cases of Mr Jitendra Patel, of 65–67 Stanley Road, Bootle, Liverpool, and Grandbydale Ltd, the company of which he was superintendent pharmacist. Information had been received that at South Sefton magistrates' court on March 16, 1999, Mr Patel and the company had pleaded guilty to four counts of the illegal sale of a medicine at Haddens Chemists, a pharmacy owned by the company at 65–67 Stanley Road, Bootle, Liverpool. Mr Patel and the company had been fined £100 each on each charge, and the company ordered to pay £835 costs.
The committee had also received a complaint from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society that on certain dates there had been no pharmacist in charge of the premises, that prescriptions had been dispensed and handed out when no pharmacist had been present, and that pharmacy medicines had been displayed on open shelves, although previous advice had been given that such items should be removed from self-selection.
Mr D. Bradly, of counsel, instructed by Walker Martineau (solicitors), appeared in order to present the facts of the case to the committee.
Mr Patel was present at the inquiry. He and Grandbydale Ltd were represented by Miss B. Knight, of Cobley's (solicitors).
The committee heard that the offences had come to light when one of the Society's inspectors had visited Hadden Chemists at about 2pm on July 25, 1998. He had found pharmacy medicines on open display and had purchased a bottle of Kolanticon gel and a tube of Zovirax cream. On inquiry, he found that no pharmacist was present and an assistant telephoned Mr Patel, who arrived about 20 minutes later. While being interviewed, Mr Patel had said he had returned from a fortnight's holiday in India the previous day, and had been present that day at the pharmacy between 9.30am and 12.30pm, when he had taken some work home. He told the inspector that no prescriptions had been dispensed in his absence. He was then asked for the details of locum cover during his absence on holiday.
On investigation, it was established that one prescription had been dispensed and handed out and another prescription handed out that day after Mr Patel had left the premises. At a subsequent interview, on August 19, when shown one of the prescriptions, Mr Patel told the inspector that he did not recall dispensing the medicine but that it must have been dispensed by his staff and checked by him. He said he had understood, erroneously, that if he had dispensed a medicine and sealed it, it could be handed out in his absence. The inspector had observed that pharmacy medicines had still been on open display.
On September 22, Mr Patel was again questioned by an inspector about locum cover while he had been away. He had maintained that to the best of his knowledge a locum had been present at all times. Evidence was produced that one of the locums he named had been out of the country at the time and another had not been present at the pharmacy on the dates in question.
In a statement, Mr Patel said that at the time of his interview he had presumed all the locums he had booked to cover his absence on holiday had attended. However, in respect of two Saturdays and two afternoons, he said it was "more wishful thinking than a real expectation" that cover had been arranged. He realised that he should have instructed his staff to close the pharmacy on the days when no locum was present.
Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Mr Gary Flather, QC) said that the four offences to which Mr Patel and the company had pleaded guilty, and for which they had been fined, could not possibly be condoned but, on their own, might have been dealt with by a reprimand.
However, there was a great deal more to the case. On the matter of locum cover during Mr Patel's absence, the chairman said that the lack of cover on two days was made more serious by Mr Patel's "cavalier" attitude. He had lied to the inspector about the cover arranged. And even though he was in India, he could have been in touch with the pharmacy by telephone to find whether a locum was present and the shop should have been closed.
In relation to the prescriptions, Mr Patel had accepted that one of them had been dispensed by a counter assistant in his absence although he had told the inspector that all the medicines dispensed were under his supervision. "Lies again," said the chairman.
Then there were pharmacy medicines on the general sales shelves, to which the public had access. Those medicines had to be sold to a member of the public by or under the supervision of a pharmacist because if they were sold without advice being available or necessary warnings being given they could give rise to danger to the purchaser. Yet in spite of having been given advice on two previous occasions, pharmacy medicines were still on open display at the inspector's third visit.
The convictions and the misconduct had both been proved. The cumulative effect was such that the committee had no alternative but to direct that Mr Patel's name should be removed from the register.
He had three months in which to appeal against the decision. No order was made in respect of the company.