‘He tarnished my reputation’: whistleblower demands action against CQC accuser

Shyam Kumar, a surgeon who was part of inspection teams in the North West, told HSJ that he had to live with question marks over his reputation for several years. He is furious that a senior CQC official sought to question his honesty and integrity in evidence submitted to the employment tribunal examing his dismisal.

The tribunal heard Mr Kumar had raised a number of whistleblowing disclosures to the CQC, including concerns about the lack of appropriate expertise on inspection teams.

In a ruling last year, the tribunal judge said Mr Kumar was subsequently removed from the list of advisers used by the CQC, partly because of the concerns he had raised. It said the decision was made by Mike Zeiderman, the CQC’s national adviser for surgery, with input from Kim Wood, a local manager.

After a wide-ranging review around its handling of whistleblowing concerns, CQC chief executive Ian Trenholm last week apologised to Mr Kumar for “unacceptably poor treatment” by his organisation, and thanked him for contributing to the review.

However, Mr Kumar told HSJ: “I’m glad the CQC has looked at this and finally acknowledged what they did to me was wrong. But I want to know what has happened to the individuals that were responsible.”

Mr Kumar said his honesty and probity had been questioned by Mr Zeiderman in a witness statement to the tribunal, adding: “All of that was deliberated in a public domain in front of my family, friends and the press. When doctors do something wrong they are called up in front of the GMC and investigated.

“I want to know what the CQC has done about his actions in unfairly dismissing me as a specialist adviser and then trying to tarnish my reputation in a public court. The tribunal judge found in my favour and questioned his evidence to the court, and the CQC has said it accepts this. So, what now?”

The CQC declined to comment on “individual HR matters”. It is understood Mr Zeiderman still works for the regulator, but not in the same role.

Attempt to question motives

As well as his concerns about CQC inspections, Mr Kumar had also raised a series of legitimate safety concerns about an associate surgeon at his primary employer, University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay FT. These caused major tensions at the trust and resulted in him being targeted for criticism by a different colleague at UHMB, and being labelled a “traitor” to Indian doctors in a group email.

When challenged by Mr Kumar, the colleague complained to the CQC that Mr Kumar had sought to threaten and intimidate him.

This allegation was then used by the CQC as a reason for removing Mr Kumar from its list of advisors in December 2018. Mr Zeiderman’s witness statement, submitted in 2020, suggested Mr Kumar’s motive in raising safety concerns about the associate surgeon may have been linked to his work in helping reduce waiting lists, and therefore reducing opportunities for Mr Kumar to make additional income through overtime initiatives or outsourcing work with a private hospital.

Ultimately, the tribunal was critical of Mr Zeiderman’s explanations for dismissing Mr Kumar, saying they “appeared to develop” in the months after the decision and into the proceedings. It found the allegations against Mr Kumar were never investigated and he was unfairly dismissed. It said eight protected disclosures which he had made had a “material influence” on the decision, but particularly those which cited a lack of expertise on CQC inspection teams.

In a statement last week, Mr Trenholm said: “I also want to apologise again for the unacceptably poor treatment Mr Kumar received from us both prior to and during the employment tribunal, and for our failure to recognise the impact of this on him personally and professionally.”