Sayed Mia
Introduction
Sayed Mia is a UK doctor who was suspended from the medical register for twelve months on 19 December 2025, after a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service found he had carried out surgical procedures at premises not registered with the Care Quality Commission, given false information to CQC inspectors when they visited, and omitted the work from a formal Declaration of Concerns. The tribunal found all allegations proved, including dishonesty, assessed the risk to public protection as high, and placed the suspension at the upper end of the relevant banding while stopping short of erasure .
Background Information
Between October and November 2023, Mia performed surgical procedures — including gynaecomastia and liposuction work — at unregistered premises at 41 Harley Street in London. Premises carrying out that kind of regulated activity must be registered with the CQC, and a doctor performing procedures there outside a registered framework operates beyond the inspection regime that exists to protect patients. The Declaration of Concerns he later filed is the mechanism through which a doctor’s designated body learns of anything that could bear on registration — leaving material out of it defeats the early-warning purpose the document exists to serve. The dishonesty allegations were contested at the hearing; the remaining allegations were admitted .
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated (regulatory). The findings are a medical tribunal’s conclusions on the civil standard. No criminal charge was involved.
The confrontation that anchored the case came on 14 November 2023, when CQC inspectors visited the Harley Street premises. Confronted at the door, Mia gave a false name, claimed to be a patient, and denied being a medical doctor at all. The tribunal found he had acted dishonestly toward the inspectors. Weeks later, in January 2024, he submitted a Declaration of Concerns form to his designated body — the document through which a doctor discloses matters that could affect registration — and left his work at the unregistered premises out of it entirely. The tribunal found that omission dishonest as well, and proved all allegations .
On sanction, the tribunal weighted the dishonesty toward the public-protection limb and assessed the risk as high, imposing a twelve-month suspension at the upper end of the banding. Erasure was rejected as disproportionate given his engagement with the proceedings, expressions of remorse, and early steps toward remediation. A review hearing was directed before the order expires .
Public Reaction and Consequences
The consequence is the twelve-month suspension and the stripping of the anonymity the false name was meant to buy: the CQC visit, the claimed patient identity and the omitted declaration are all now findings on the public record. The case is recorded in MedicWatch’s listing of doctors suspended in 2025 .
No patient-harm finding features in the published determination, and no employer statement or public comment from Mia appears in the fetched record beyond it .
Current Status
Mia is a suspended doctor under a twelve-month order imposed on 19 December 2025, with a review hearing directed before it ends. The tribunal’s impairment finding rests on public protection — the high risk assessment — and the sanction’s position at the top of its band reflects findings of dishonesty on two separate fronts: the inspection itself and the declaration that followed .
The review will test whether the early remediation the tribunal credited has matured. Any return to surgical practice would carry the finding that he misrepresented who he was to the regulator’s own inspectors .
Impact on Their Career/Life
The case sits at the intersection of two failures the profession treats as compounding: operating outside the registered-premises framework, and then lying about it when the regulator came to look. Cosmetic surgery performed at unregistered premises sits outside the audit trail — no inspection, no registered provider accountable for the theatre — and the false-name answer to inspectors converted a regulatory breach into a dishonesty case. Twelve months suspended, with a high risk assessment on the record and a review to face, is the price of the anonymity that failed on the doorstep. The banding matters too: the tribunal placed the case at the upper end of the suspension range, one step short of erasure and retained there only by the engagement, remorse and early remediation it found — a margin that a review hearing will now test .