A gynaecologist whose name was erased from the medical register for dishonesty has last an appeal to allow him to practice again.

Rod Irvine, of Sidcup, worked across Kent and south-east London and faced misconduct allegations relating to ten of his patients last year.

Mr Irvine appealed against a decision to scrub his name from the medical register in relation to allegations he worked at Fawkham Manor and Blackheath Hospital amongst others without valid indemnity cover.

He also appealed against allegations he failed to inform Blackheath Hospital that he did not hold indemnity cover.

The Court of Appeal heard how Mr Irvine admitted in 2013 that between the years of 2008 and 2010 he did not have the correct cover.

This means that any patients injured by him could only sue him personally because there was no insurance to cover the costs of a claim.

In a correspondence with the CEO of Lister Hospital, he wrote: “The GMC are already fully aware of this fact. It was a complete oversight on my part, totally unintentional.”

Mr Irvine was appealing a decision from December 2016.

The High Court threw out his appeal however, stating that the tribunal found Mr Irvine dishonest in “a number of respects.”

The original tribunal decision, which was upheld, said: “The tribunal noted that he still sought to blame others for the fact that he had no insurance in respect of his private practice during the relevant period, and showed no real insight into his own failings.”

Mr Irvine’s patients in this period therefore faced risk that a clinical error might go uncompensated.

The original tribunal said: “Bearing in mind your persistent lack of insight into, and failure to acknowledge your dishonesty, combined with other reasons set out above, the tribunal has determined that erasure is the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in your case.”

Mr Irvine’s advocate, Mr Stockinger, submitted that: “Mr Irvine had at all material times honestly believed he was insured, having taken all necessary steps to effect and pay for insurance cover from the MPS or, latterly, the MDU.”

It was also argued that Mr Irvine’s admission of sloppiness in dealing with administrations of his practice should not be found to be dishonest.

Judge Mr Justice Holroyde said in his discussion: “I turn to the important issue of whether the Tribunal were wrong to find that Mr Irvine was not covered by adequate insurance during the period 2007-2012.

“It is in my judgement entirely clear that they were not wrong so to find. The evidence pointed overwhelmingly to the conclusion that insurance with MPS ended in 2007 and insurance with MDU did not begin until 2012, and the tribunal were undoubtedly entitled to make the findings they did.”