South London Doctor Struck Off After Harassment Tribunal Kingston 2026

Key Points

• erasure decision: Dr Asis Kumar, a senior consultant in the Stroke Department at Kingston Hospital, has been erased (struck off) from the General Medical Council (GMC) medical register.
• tribunal findings: The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) concluded that Dr Kumar’s behaviour constituted “very serious misconduct of a sexually predatory nature” that persisted across four months and escalated over time.
• nature of allegations: The tribunal found proved that Dr Kumar kissed a junior colleague, referred to in proceedings as Ms A, on the cheek, touched her stomach over her clothes, and stroked her sides whilst hugging her.
• timeframe: The events occurred between May and September 2021 at Kingston Hospital in South London.
• position of trust: The panel highlighted a significant disparity in age, status, and authority, noting that Ms A was very junior within the department while Dr Kumar was a senior consultant.
• hearing dates: The MPTS tribunal sat in July and completed its proceedings in September 2026.

Kingston upon Thames (South London News) November 4, 2026 — A senior hospital doctor who engaged in a course of unwanted sexual conduct towards a junior female colleague at a South London hospital has been struck off the medical register following a regulatory fitness to practise hearing. As reported by local media coverage of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) rulings, Dr Asis Kumar was subjected to an erasure order after the panel concluded his actions were sexually predatory, sustained, and represented a severe breach of professional boundaries.

Dr Kumar, who had been employed as a consultant in the Stroke Department at Kingston Hospital since March 2015 before resigning in February 2022, faced allegations regarding his conduct toward a junior member of staff, designated in tribunal documentation as Ms A. According to official findings published by the MPTS tribunal panel, the misconduct took place on multiple occasions between May 2021 and September 2021 on hospital premises.

What Findings Did The MPTS Tribunal Reach Regarding Dr Kumar’s Conduct?

As detailed in the official record of determinations published by the MPTS tribunal panel, the regulatory body examined a series of factual allegations concerning physical interactions and verbal comments made by Dr Kumar toward Ms A during their shared time in the stroke department.

The panel found it proved on the balance of probabilities that Dr Kumar touched Ms A on her stomach over her clothing. Furthermore, the panel found established that Dr Kumar had stroked Ms A’s sides while hugging her, repeatedly complimented the scent of her perfume, and kissed her on the cheek prior to and on 8 September 2021.

As reported in the MPTS tribunal determination, Ms A described feeling “scared, embarrassed” and uncomfortable as a result of the repeated actions. Although Dr Kumar acknowledged that hugs and a kiss on the cheek had occurred, he disputed the context and motivation behind the acts, maintaining that his actions were non-sexual and intended as friendly or comforting gestures. The tribunal rejected his explanation, concluding that the evidence demonstrated a clear pattern of unwanted sexual advances.

How Did The Disparity In Authority Influence The Tribunal’s Verdict?

During the course of the tribunal proceedings, significant attention was given to the professional dynamics existing between the two healthcare workers. As outlined in the MPTS determination, Ms A was early in her clinical career and occupied a very junior position within the department, whereas Dr Kumar was an established senior consultant.

The tribunal highlighted that there was a substantial difference in both age and institutional authority between the two individuals. The panel observed that Dr Kumar abused his position of seniority and trust within the clinical hierarchy. In its written determination, the MPTS panel noted that Dr Kumar’s actions constituted “very serious misconduct of a sexually predatory nature that persisted over four months and escalated over time”.

The tribunal panel further observed that where a senior clinician uses their professional standing to target a vulnerable junior colleague, such conduct fundamentally undermines the working environment, institutional trust, and the standing of the medical profession as a whole.

What Was Dr Kumar’s Defence During The Hearing?

In submissions presented to the panel, Dr Kumar sought to address the specific allegations surrounding his physical contact with Ms A. Regarding the instance of touching her stomach, Dr Kumar contended during testimony that he had pinched or touched his own stomach over his clothes to demonstrate weight loss advice.

However, as reported in the MPTS record of determinations, the tribunal noted inconsistencies in Dr Kumar’s accounts across different stages of the investigation. The panel highlighted that during his initial responses and a voluntary police interview conducted in June 2022, Dr Kumar had made no mention of demonstrating weight loss on himself in the manner he later described to the panel.

Evaluating the credibility of the witnesses, the tribunal panel determined that Ms A’s evidence was consistent, reliable, and compelling. Consequently, the panel preferred the account provided by Ms A over that of Dr Kumar, finding the factual allegations proved.

Why Did The Panel Conclude That Erasure Was The Only Appropriate Sanction?

When determining the appropriate outcome following its findings of misconduct, the MPTS panel evaluated the full range of regulatory sanctions, including conditions, suspension, and erasure from the medical register.

The tribunal determined that Dr Kumar demonstrated a lack of genuine insight into the impact of his behaviour on his colleague and the broader reputation of the medical sector. The panel concluded that suspension would be insufficient to protect the public interest, maintain public confidence in the profession, and declare proper standards of conduct for doctors.

As recorded in the final MPTS outcome, the tribunal directed that Dr Asis Kumar’s name be erased from the GMC register, effectively prohibiting him from practising medicine in the United Kingdom.

Background To The Particular Development

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service operates as an independent adjudication body in the United Kingdom, responsible for deciding fitness to practise cases referred by the General Medical Council. Under the Medical Act 1983, the GMC investigates complaints regarding registered medical practitioners, while the MPTS conducts formal hearings to determine whether a doctor’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, deficient professional performance, or health issues.

In recent years, regulatory bodies across the UK healthcare sector—including the GMC, the National Health Service (NHS), and royal colleges—have placed heightened focus on tackling sexual misconduct, harassment, and abuses of power within medical environments. The NHS implemented stricter reporting protocols and updated its national framework to address workplace sexual misconduct following widespread campaigns advocating for safety and equality in clinical settings.

Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, where the incidents occurred in 2021, operates under these standard NHS employment guidelines, which require internal investigations alongside regulatory notifications to the GMC whenever serious allegations of staff harassment arise. Dr Kumar’s formal resignation from the trust occurred in February 2022 prior to the final conclusion of the MPTS tribunal proceedings in 2026.

Prediction: How This Development Can Affect NHS Staff And Hospital Working Environments

The sanction of erasure in this high-profile case is likely to exert a direct influence on healthcare personnel, hospital trust management, and junior clinical staff across the National Health Service.

For junior medical staff and training doctors, the outcome reinforces regulatory mechanisms designed to protect junior employees from workplace harassment. The decisive sanction demonstrates that professional regulatory bodies are prepared to impose the maximum penalty of erasure when senior practitioners exploit hierarchical power dynamics. This development may encourage other healthcare workers who experience or witness misconduct to report incidents through institutional channels without fear that senior colleagues will receive impunity.

For senior clinicians and NHS trust managers, the decision signals a continuing enforcement of zero-tolerance policies regarding sexual harassment in clinical settings. Hospital trusts are likely to review their internal escalation procedures, duty of care frameworks, and supervisory structures to ensure that boundary violations are identified and addressed swiftly. The ruling underscores that technical expertise or senior status provides no protection against regulatory removal when professional boundaries are breached.