A surgeon who lied about his experience and expertise has been told to pay back more than £330,000 or face more jail time.
Sudip Sarker was sentenced to six years' imprisonment at Worcester Crown Court in February 2018 after he was found guilty of fraud and misrepresentation.
On Friday (May 31), Sarker appeared back in court where he was asked to pay back £337,214.78 within three months or face another three-and-a- half years in prison.
The amount of £337,214.78 included the salary Sarker earned while working as a consultant with Alexandra Hospital in Redditch.
During an inquest at the Worcester Crown court last year, prosecutor Jacob Hallam said Sarker's appointment had led to many "disastrous operations."
Sarker had left a "trail of devastation" in the "employment he should never have had."
"This fraud has a serious detrimental effect on all the victims," the prosecutor said. There had been more than one death of his patients.
Sarker was employed after passing an interview by a selection panel at Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust. However, alarm bells began ringing after a number of patients, many battling cancers, suffered life-changing complications after their treatment.
Many patients may have been harmed at the hands of the surgeon.
A report by the Royal College of Surgeons stated: “All in all, the reviewers considered that Mr Sarker’s standard of surgical knowledge, judgement and team working was significantly below the level that should be expected from a consultant capable of independent practice.
“The case note review indicated that Mr Sarker did not keep adequate records and that he did no have basic surgical expertise in key areas, including stoma formation, hernia repair, siting of stomas and assiduous post operative care.”
“...Mr Sarker’s selection of patients was poor. Patients whose life expectancy was limited, due to co-morbidities, had surgical procedures performed by Mr Sarker that were not only of little benefit but significantly reduced their quality and quantity of life.
“In some patients with advanced disease the reviewers considered that the procedure performed (usually a bypass) had leaked, thus leading to the patient’s early death, although since the patient rarely had an autopsy, their view could not be confirmed.’’
