A DOCTOR from Blackburn is fighting for his professional life amid claims he diagnosed a series of holiday food poisoning cases without evidence.

Dr Zuber Bux, who was acting as a medical witness in county court claims at the time, has also been accused of failing to disclose his wife was a director of the legal firm which had commissioned his work.

Five such cases, involving the former Brookhouse Medical Centre GP, are the subject of a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service fitness to practise hearing, which has got underway in Manchester.

According to the General Medical Council, Dr Bux was working on behalf of Medico Legal and Litigation Services at the time, carrying out work on behalf of AMS Solicitors.

The panel has been told that ‘Mrs G’ - Dr Bux’s wife - was a director of AMS at the time and his actions could be considered “misleading, dishonest and financially motivated”.

Dr Bux’s wife has already been identified as Sehana Bux, after the collapse of a Liverpool County Court case involving disputed holiday medical claims.

The GMC says the doctor’s relationship “amounted to a conflict of interest” and he had failed to take adequate steps to determine whether this would be the case.

In each of the five specimen cases, he is said to have failed to declare his personal relationship with ‘Mrs G’ in medical reports, while stating that he had complied with his duty as an expert witness in court proceedings.

He is also said to have “diagnosed food poisoning without sufficient evidence to do so”, on various dates, in medical reports issued between May and August 2016.

In at least two of the cases he is accused of failing to acknowledge consultations carried out by separate doctors.

But claims that he failed to examine each of the five patients personally have been withdrawn by GMC lawyers at the start of the proceedings.

READ > Dad's anger at 'dirty' state of Royal Blackburn Hospital's A&E

The doctor has said that he was following guidelines issued by the Medical Defence Union, even though his arrangement with AMS might amount to a conflict of interest.

Dr Bux is also facing a separate series of claims in respect of a circumcision procedure carried out on ‘Patient A’, in July 2017.

He is accused of failing to obtain an adequate medical history, including details of his congenital heart condition, which may have advised against carrying out the procedure.

The operation has been described as ‘high risk’, to be carried out usually in a hospital setting, and Dr Bux must answer claims he failed to adequately inform the patient’s parents about the possible difficulties.

He is also accused of two procedural faults during the operation itself, including the application of analgesic cream and administering an ‘excessive’ dose of Oramoprh, a painkiller.

The hearing, expected to run until October 18, continues.