My findings
Jump to
I have explained the approach I take to determining complaints in paragraphs 11 to 16. Taking into account the Ombudsman’s Principles (paragraph 17), I begin my consideration of Mrs D’s case by establishing what should have happened following the Healthcare Commission’s review of her complaint.
In line with my Principles of Good Complaint Handling (paragraph 18) Mr Nath should have ‘put things right’ and provided apologies where appropriate. The Healthcare Commission recommended that Mr Nath provide Mrs D with five separate apologies. Taking into account our Adviser’s comments, I consider that the recommendation to apologise was appropriate. In addition, the GDC has warned Mr Nath that he should follow the recommendations of professional bodies. However, Mr Nath showed disregard for the recommendations made by the Healthcare Commission in April 2008 and for the GDC’s warning. Although Mr Nath has said that he considers he has apologised to Mrs D, he has not. He has provided some apologies to the Healthcare Commission and reiterated these to the GDC. Mr Nath has not provided any apology to Mrs D, instead he has requested that she apologise to him. In short, he did not ‘put things right’. Mr Nath’s actions fell so far short of the applicable standard as to amount to maladministration.
Injustice
I have found maladministration in relation to Mr Nath’s failure to implement the Healthcare Commission’s recommendations. I have therefore considered whether an injustice was suffered in consequence of the maladministration.
The maladministration caused by Mr Nath led to Mrs D not receiving the apologies that the Healthcare Commission recommended. This is in itself an injustice. Mrs D has said that because Mr Nath has not apologised she has been left feeling ‘offended’ and ‘shocked’ and unable to gain closure on her original complaint. I can understand that the lack of apology would leave Mrs D feeling that her complaint has not been taken seriously and therefore her original feelings of offence and shock would remain.
Moreover, Mrs D has had the inconvenience of bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, when it could and should have been resolved much sooner.
Conclusions
Having studied the available evidence and taken account of the advice provided by our Adviser, I find shortcomings in the way Mr Nath responded to the Healthcare Commission’s recommendations and that these shortcomings amounted to maladministration. I have assessed whether the injustice, in this case being left feeling ‘offended’ and ‘shocked’ and unable to gain closure, arose in consequence of the maladministration I have identified and have concluded that it did.
Therefore, I uphold Mrs D’s complaint about Mr Nath.
Recommendations
In making recommendations I am guided by my Principles for Remedy. ‘Putting things right’ states that, if possible, the complainant should be returned to the position they would have been in if the maladministration had not occurred. If that is not possible, then the complainant should be compensated. Public bodies should also consider seriously all forms of remedy, for example, an apology, an explanation, remedial action or financial compensation. With this in mind, I recommend that within one month Mr Nath should:
- provide Mrs D with a full acknowledgement and apology for the failings identified in our report;
- provide Mrs D with the apologies recommended by the Healthcare Commission; and
- provide Mrs D with a sum of £500 as compensation for the feelings of shock and offence she has suffered as a consequence of the maladministration and the inconvenience of bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, when it could and should have been resolved much sooner.
A copy of the acknowledgement and apologies, and confirmation that the compensation has been paid to Mrs D, should be sent to me.
