Getty ImagesA surgeon has been suspended for nine months for being drunk at work, which a tribunal heard he blamed on the stress of extra work due to a junior doctors’ strike.
Dr Vivek Vatikutti was said to have drunk “up to two thirds of a 750ml bottle of vodka” before arriving at Warrington Hospital, where he was a surgical registrar, the Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal Service heard.
A colleague accused him of being intoxicated after they smelled alcohol on his breath during a surgical handover on 22 September 2023. The tribunal found his actions were a “real risk to patient safety”.
It accepted it was a single incident of misconduct during a “lengthy career” and he had no previous adverse history.
Dr Vatikutti told the tribunal he had drunk alcohol the night before his shift because he was “stressed and tired, due to the heavier workload he had faced when other junior doctors were on strike and he was not”.
The tribunal heard that after working a shift on 21 September that year, he “had been feeling exhausted, especially as there were no junior doctors working”. Junior doctors are now called resident doctors.
Warrington and Halton Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustThe panel was told Dr Vatikutti bought a Chinese takeaway on his way home and then drank vodka at about 20:30 or 21:00 BST and went to bed before midnight.
He woke at about 07:15 the next day but missed breakfast because he was late for work, with the tribunal told the doctor “did not believe that he was under the influence of alcohol or that his performance was impacted”.
The surgeon said he accepted he would not have been safe to drive but “felt OK, and no-one complained”.
After blood tests, the surgeon was found to have had a blood alcohol level of 48mg/dl.
Dr Vatikutti, who qualified in India but has been working in the NHS for the past 10 years, told the tribunal he felt “guilty” and was “very sorry that he had gone to work”.
The tribunal found his behaviour constituted very serious misconduct, adding he had shown “very little insight into the risks his behaviour posed to patients, colleagues and the reputation of the profession”.
The tribunal concluded a suspension for nine months was the appropriate and proportionate response.