A DOCTOR who used an NHS Trust's postal system to deliver charitable parcels to India which were not related to hospital business has escaped with a warning.

Dr Anirban Mandal, a locum consultant and speciality doctor in plastic and reconstructive surgery at St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, admitted to sending up to 20 parcels during the last two weeks of August 2017.

The parcels were sent to help raise money for a burns charity in India which Dr Mandal supported, a tribunal heard.

Ms Fairley of the General Medical Council said Dr Mandal "made no effort to ascertain if the Trust would permit him to send the packages" and that given the "repeated nature of his actions, he doesn't fully appear to appreciate his dishonesty".

The cost to the NHS caused by his actions amounted to approximately £30.

However, despite the tribunal finding the actions of Dr Mandal "dishonest" after he did not pay postage and told the Trust post department the parcels were for hospital business, it did not find his ability to practice impaired.

In his evidence Dr Mandal said he "accepted he acted dishonestly and apologised".

He provided details of his charity work and examples of "CDs and a magazine which he sent to people who support his charity work".

In submissions on Dr Mandal's behalf that his conduct followed "from an error of judgement" and that Dr Mandal "acknowledges that he has made a serious mistake", with the tribunal asked to consider "proportionality".

The parcels were sent when there had been a "peak in demand for the items" in India and , despite normally using the post office, "given his busy schedule when on-call" he used the hospital post.

It was added there have been "no concerns regarding clinical ability" and that Dr Mandal has "continued to play a positive role at the Trust and his colleagues value him highly" and is "not a man who sought personal gain".

In its findings, the tribunal felt Dr Mandal's had been dishonest for "a matter of convenience" and it was not in dispute he "brought the profession into disrepute".

However, the tribunal was "impressed" by his "unusual but directly relevant form of remediation" after he attended budgetary meetings at the hospital to help him understand the impact of his actions.

It was found he "had given real thought to his dishonest conduct" and had even completed courses and booked a face-to-face ethic course for the near future.

The tribunal added it was satisfied the matter was "an error of judgement in an otherwise exemplary 18-year career".