London-based Mohsin Hassanali Pirbhai appeared before the General Optical Council's professional conduct committee earlier this week where he pleaded guilty to serious professional misconduct.
Pirbhai, who has had a hitherto unblemished record, qualified nearly 30 years ago and is registered at Hodd Barnes & Dickins in High Holborn.
He admitted keeping inadequate records in the case of patient B who complained about the £240 bill and also failing to assist a GOC investigation into a complaint by another patient (A) because he did not respond to GOC correspondence and requests for records.
Bradley Albuery for the GOC told the committee that on January 3 this year patient B visited the High Holborn practice for the first time to have the plastic frame of his spectacles mended.
'Patient B showed Mr Pirbhai his broken spectacles and asked if he could repair them and was told they could not be repaired.'
Albuery added that the patient was told the lenses could not easily be put into new frames and a new sight test was carried out and new spectacles issued.
Following a complaint to the GOC by patient B about the manner in which he was dealt with, an investigation found that Pirbhai had not kept a proper record of the visit and examination.
It was pointed out that Pirbhai appeared before the committee not because of the complaint but solely because of his record-keeping.
The details of patient A's case were not given but the committee heard that after repeated requests by the GOC Pirbhai did not supply records for six months until he was visited by a GOC official. This was despite a legal requirement to disclose the records within 40 days.
Albuery said that in the case of patient A, Pirbhai had frustrated rather than assisted the investigation. This, he added, 'falls seriously short of the standard that can be properly expected'.
Pirbhai told the committee he had not replied to the GOC when asked because he was 'in the process of trying to resolve the complaint with the patients themselves'. However, giving evidence, patient A said this was not the case.
In mitigation Pirbhai said: 'I realise now that however carefully I examined the patient (B), I should have made a full record. I'm a hardworking and conscientious optometrist and I'm very sorry I have slipped up in this way. I will certainly never make the same mistake again.'
Committee chairman David Pyle said serious professional misconduct could only properly be reflected by a period of suspension and a penalty order.
Pirbhai was ordered to pay the financial penalty within 28 days.An optometrist has been suspended for three months and fined £1,600 for inadequate record keeping after a patient who wanted his spectacles repaired ended up with a £240 bill.
London-based Mohsin Hassanali Pirbhai appeared before the General Optical Council's professional conduct committee earlier this week where he pleaded guilty to serious professional misconduct.
Pirbhai, who has had a hitherto unblemished record, qualified nearly 30 years ago and is registered at Hodd Barnes & Dickins in High Holborn.
He admitted keeping inadequate records in the case of patient B who complained about the £240 bill and also failing to assist a GOC investigation into a complaint by another patient (A) because he did not respond to GOC correspondence and requests for records.
Bradley Albuery for the GOC told the committee that on January 3 this year patient B visited the High Holborn practice for the first time to have the plastic frame of his spectacles mended.
'Patient B showed Mr Pirbhai his broken spectacles and asked if he could repair them and was told they could not be repaired.'
Albuery added that the patient was told the lenses could not easily be put into new frames and a new sight test was carried out and new spectacles issued.
Following a complaint to the GOC by patient B about the manner in which he was dealt with, an investigation found that Pirbhai had not kept a proper record of the visit and examination.
It was pointed out that Pirbhai appeared before the committee not because of the complaint but solely because of his record-keeping.
The details of patient A's case were not given but the committee heard that after repeated requests by the GOC Pirbhai did not supply records for six months until he was visited by a GOC official. This was despite a legal requirement to disclose the records within 40 days.
Albuery said that in the case of patient A, Pirbhai had frustrated rather than assisted the investigation. This, he added, 'falls seriously short of the standard that can be properly expected'.
Pirbhai told the committee he had not replied to the GOC when asked because he was 'in the process of trying to resolve the complaint with the patients themselves'. However, giving evidence, patient A said this was not the case.
In mitigation Pirbhai said: 'I realise now that however carefully I examined the patient (B), I should have made a full record. I'm a hardworking and conscientious optometrist and I'm very sorry I have slipped up in this way. I will certainly never make the same mistake again.'
Committee chairman David Pyle said serious professional misconduct could only properly be reflected by a period of suspension and a penalty order.
Pirbhai was ordered to pay the financial penalty within 28 days.
An optometrist has been suspended for three months and fined £1,600 for inadequate record keeping after a patient who wanted his spectacles repaired ended up with a £240 bill.