A London pharmacist who claimed for items not dispensed and allowed credit for the amount involved to a fraudulent doctor has been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee.
At its meeting on December 9, 1999, the committee inquired into the case of Mr Surinder Singh Lall, of 76 Katherine Road, East Ham, London E6. The committee had received a complaint from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that, on a number of occasions, credit had been allowed to the value of items ordered on National Health Service prescriptions but not supplied, and the prescriptions had been endorsed to the effect that all the items had been dispensed. The goods supplied had included shop goods and prescription only medicines. Mr Lall had received a police formal caution in respect of five such offences.
Mr Lall was present at the hearing and was represented by Mrs S. Whitehouse, of counsel, instructed by Goldkorns (solicitors).
Mr D. Bradly, of counsel, instructed by Walker Martineau (solicitors), appeared in order to place the facts of the case before the committee.
The committee heard that the offences, which were admitted, had occurred after a man passing himself off as a Dr Rahman had introduced himself to Mr Lall at the latter's pharmacy. The purported doctor had flashed an identity card, had carried a stethoscope and a black bag containing medical instruments and referred to his "doctor on call" car sign. Mr Lall had been taken in and had accepted that the individual was genuine. In fact, he had turned out to be a professional fraudster with a long history of, and convictions for, a variety of offences. Himself a Bengali, he had posed as a doctor and practised as such among the Bengali community in the area, including giving injections.
He had brought prescriptions to be dispensed at Mr Lall's pharmacy: legitimate prescriptions issued by various doctors for a number of named patients, said to be members of his family, which were dispensed and handed to him as the patient's representative. In fact, they had all been prescribed for the supposed Dr Rahman himself, under a variety of aliases. Over a period of time, the bogus "doctor" had gained Mr Lall's confidence and Mr Lall eventually agreed to give him credit for some of the items prescribed which, he said, were not required. Some of the goods were prescription medicines for which "Dr Rahman" said he would obtain prescriptions.
However, Mr Lall had endorsed the prescriptions as if they had been dispensed in full. This had occurred on 13 occasions; the amount involved totalled £650.
A police witness told the committee he had visited Mr Lall at his pharmacy in connection with investigations into the activities of Rahman, who had been arrested. He had been found in possession of medicines to the value of £12,000, obtained on prescriptions dispensed at a number of pharmacies, including Mr Lall's. There had also been hypodermic syringes, some of which had been used. The witness said he had shown Mr Lall a number of medicines confiscated from "Dr Rahman". Mr Lall had confirmed he had dispensed them and had further admitted the arrangement about allowing credit for items not dispensed. In a further interview under caution at the police station, Mr Lall had made a formal statement.
The witness added that Mr Lall had been completely open and frank about the matter when he realised that the individual he had believed to be a doctor was an impersonator and posed a threat to the health of the community
"Dr Rahman" had eventually been sent to prison for four and a half years for a variety of offences including illegally claiming social security benefits.
Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Mr Gary Flather, QC) said that Mr Lall had been taken in by a professional fraudster who had displayed many of the attributes of doctor. It was reasonable for him to have dispensed the prescriptions brought in by "Dr Rahman" on the assumption that they were for people who did not speak English and needed them collected.
When pressed to give credit for items not dispensed, Mr Lall had refused three times but eventually agreed to do so. Even though he knew it was wrong, he did it on 13 occasions. And as time went on he allowed "Dr Rahman", on three or four occasions, to have prescription-only medicines without a prescription, on the promise that one would be forthcoming. That was understandable. What could not be accepted was that he had not put his foot down. Mr Lall had given various explanations as to why he had not refused to go through with the credit arrangement or supply POMs without a prescription. The reality was that he had been naive, stupid and weak.
There had been fraud against the public purse; it was a shameful breach of trust. However, he had not acted for himself; there had been no benefit to him and the matter would not have been revealed if he had not himself told the police about it .The amount involved had been repaid. And it was to the public benefit that he had assisted the police. He was a man of very good character who had produced excellent references.
The committee found that misconduct had been proved; such cases were usually dealt with by removal from the register. In this case, on a balance of the facts, it had been decided to order that Mr Lall be reprimanded.