A CONSULTANT surgeon who was accused of discriminating against an Indian-trained doctor by advising he should not be promoted was cleared of any wrongdoing by the General Medical Council last Friday. The subject of the GMC hearing was two letters written by Dr Iain Paterson, of Middle Avenue, Farnham, one to Dr Vijay Jadhav and another to a colleague about him. Dr Paterson, who now works at Frimley Park Hospital, attended the central London hearing and denied misconduct. Dr Jadhav, 48, who believed his career was held back because of his ethnic background, qualified in 1980 in India. He claimed he found himself in a "catch 22" situation. His dream of becoming a consultant was thwarted by barriers to completing the required training, yet he was considered "over-qualified" for lesser posts. The letters written by Dr Paterson were sent in August and September 2001, but the case was postponed after Dr Jadhav took a claim to an employment tribunal and was awarded more than £600,000 in lost earnings. The first letter was sent to Dr David Britton – a consultant surgeon at the Royal United Hospital in Bath, and member of a panel who interviewed Dr Jadhav for the post of associate specialist in Poole Hospital. Dr Jadhav was told he was overqualified for the post and should become a consultant, but afterwards Dr Britton wrote to Dr Paterson, programme director for South Thames Surgical Specialist Rotation, asking if something could be done to assist Dr Jadhav. Dr Paterson wrote back that he had "observed on a few occasions that surgeons who make good staff grade surgeons do not necessarily make good consultants" and that he had been "less impressed" with Dr Jadhav than Dr Britton was. The following month, Dr Jadhav wrote to Dr Paterson, asking for help and advice, but Dr Paterson replied: "Unfortunately, I do not feel I am in a position to answer this question since I do not know you well enough." The GMC ruled the comments were not inappropriate, unprofessional or discriminatory. Chairman Dr Jaqueline Mitton said the panel accepted that Dr Paterson interpreted Dr Britton's letter as a request for normal procedures to be overridden - in effect for patronage to be invoked to assist Mr Jadhav. "The panel concluded that you felt that this was not acceptable and would have been unacceptable whatever the race or ethnic background of the doctor concerned. "Furthermore, the panel accepts that you were indignant that Mr Jadhav, as the best qualified candidate, had not been given the post. "The panel finds that your motive in writing to Mr Britton was to refute what you saw as an unacceptable suggestion of patronage and you were not conscious of a desire to discriminate against Mr Jadhav." Dr Milton added: "Considering your conduct overall in relation to the allegations you face, the panel finds that it was not inappropriate, unprofessional or discriminatory. "The result of the panel's findings of fact is that there is no finding amounting to misconduct."