
Consultant gynaecologist who 'went on warpath' towards terrified pregnant mother amid row over C-section and using forceps as she gave birth is suspended
Dr Premila Thampi, 62, from Mitcham, South London, was said to have 'gone on a bit of a warpath' when she realised the woman was unable to have the baby naturally.
It was claimed as colleagues at the Milton Keynes University Hospital in Buckinghamshire looked on, Dr Thampi refused the patient's plea to have a caesarean section.
Instead she declared: 'What you need to understand and appreciate is that I am a Consultant, and it is after six o'clock and I could have gone home and left one of my Registrar's to delivery this baby!'.
She then 'pressurised' the patient into letting her use the forceps adding: 'You need to let me do this as I don't know what is going to happen to your baby. You are putting your own baby at risk.'
The woman begrudgingly agreed to the use of the surgical instrument but shouted: 'I hate you, you haven't listened' at Dr Thampi as the forceps were applied.
She said she was left traumatised by the birth and claimed the forceps caused damage to her baby's head and face.
At the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service in Manchester Dr Thampi, was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and was ordered to be suspended from practise for three weeks.
The incident occurred in October 2016 when she was working as a Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the Milton Keynes University Hospital.
The woman known as Patient A had been admitted at 41 weeks and 3 days' gestation and was transferred to the labour ward and given pain relief whilst her mother was at her bedside.
In a statement Patient A, who suffers from a neuromuscular condition said that Dr Thampi came to check on her after she was admitted and suggested the use of forceps, which she said she clearly refused
She said: 'At around 17.45, Dr Thampi attended to review my progress. She explained I was fully dilated and asked if she could come and give me an instrumental delivery. I told Dr Thampi, "I don't want that, I want a caesarean section"'.
'But Dr Thampi just said that we 'could talk about it later' and left the room. She then next came to the delivery room shortly before 18.30 explained I was fully dilated and that she was going to give me an instrumental delivery.
'She just marched into the room to ask me if I was ready for an instrumental delivery and then marched back out again. Dr Thampi didn't explain what an instrumental delivery would involve, or what the instruments to be used were. I knew about the use of suction and a ventouse, and I verbalised to Dr Thampi that I was against the use of forceps.
'But Dr Thampi didn't explain any alternative options to an instrumental delivery. She just said, "no, you can't have a c-section" when I mentioned it and she didn't give me any explanation as to why I couldn't have a C-section.
Patient A said she was very clear she wanted to have a C-section but felt intimated by Dr Thampi.
The new mother said: 'I remember thinking at the time she was on a bit of a warpath, so I was reluctant to ask. I didn't want to keep pushing back as I was making her angry by refusing to have an instrumental delivery.
'I could tell Dr Thampi was angry by her demeanour, how abrupt she was being with me and her poor bedside manner. She was giving me no explanation as to anything, she just kept waltzing in and out of the room.'
Patient A said prior to the delivery day, she had told her midwifery and antenatal team about her objection to forceps but was ignored by the consultant.
She added: 'Miss Thampi said, "Will you let me try with the suction, the Kiwi cup?". I felt that if I had to agree, I had to agree to that because otherwise, it would be a forceps, and I did not want a forceps. In hindsight, I wouldn't have had either because of the damage it had done to my child's head and face.
'She explained, in reference to the forceps, that, "you need to let me do this as I don't know what is going to happen to your baby." It was due to this comment I felt forced into consenting to the use of forceps. I just said, "do whatever you want, you're going to do whatever you want anyway."
'I was getting louder throughout as I repeatedly declined the use of forceps, and I didn't feel like Dr Thampi was listening to me. Eventually I became so frustrated I swore at Dr Thampi. I was just scared and was trying to get her to stop her doing something to me that I clearly didn't want her to do to me.
'She said "well it's too late for a C-section now, you need to let me use the forceps because I don't know what is going to happen to your baby!" I said "I didn't want forceps I told you that!" but Miss Thampi said, "[Patient A] I am a Consultant I cannot get your baby out, you are putting your own baby at risk by not allowing me to use the forceps."
'During the process of having my legs put into the stirrups, I was saying "I do not want the forceps to be used and I haven't pushed yet." Miss Thampi then said something I will never forget for the rest of my days - "What you need to understand and appreciate is that I am a Consultant, and it is after six o'clock and I could have gone home and left one of my Registrar's to delivery this baby!"
Patient A confessed she felt pressured to do what Dr Thampi wanted and felt that she was being threatened with sub-standard care if she refused.
'I felt Miss Thampi was pressuring me into something I did not want by implying that if I didn't agree I would be left to receive a substandard level of care,' she said, 'I got the impression Dr Thampi just wanted to go home.
'She kept saying, "it's after six o'clock, I could have gone home, you need to let me do this."
'She was implying that I would receive a substandard level of care from her registrar, and instead, she had stayed so I had consultant care. She actually said, "I'm a consultant".
'I think these comments were made coercively to try and scare me into letting her do the instrumental delivery so that I wouldn't have been left in the hands of the registrar, who she made out to be incompetent.
'I felt forced into consenting to the use of forceps. I just said "do what the f**k you want, you're going to f**king do it anyway, you haven't listened to me all day! "I have thought what happened every day - it still rules my life.'
Patient A's mother said: 'When Miss Thampi came back into the room, she said that Patient A would now need to have an instrumental delivery. She didn't give any explanation as to why the instrumental delivery was required, just that it was necessary.
'Miss Thampi said that she was a consultant and that Patient A needed to listen to her. She said that it was now after 6pm and she could have gone home and left a junior to deliver the baby. The discussion went around in circles with Miss Thampi pressurising Patient A to have an instrumental delivery and my daughter kept saying no.'
For the General Medical Council Simon Jackson KC said: 'No patient should be 'pressured' into agreeing to any procedure that they make clear they do not want.
'Dr Thampi's way of treating patients, and her own decision-making processes in relation to the key issues of consenting to an instrumental delivery showed a rigidity of approach, and a lack of willingness to reflect on how things could and should have been done differently.'
Dr Thampi said in a statement: 'I discussed the option of an assisted delivery with Patient A, advised her about the use of Ventouse and also the possible use of forceps.
'She expressed concern that forceps can damage babies, but I did not interpret her comment at that point to indicate a refusal. I provided reassurance that forceps are one of the commonest tools for assisted birth and Patient A gave her consent to proceed with a ventouse delivery and was positioned ready for the delivery.
'She was happy when I said forceps will not damage the baby and she said, 'You can go ahead with the delivery'. I explained to her that we might be able to deliver with the ventouse, possibly forceps.
'Once it was apparent that delivery could not be facilitated solely by the use of ventouse, I discussed further with Patient A the use of forceps and the need for an episiotomy. Patient A said she did not want a forceps delivery but only when, in my clinical judgment, it was too late to safely change to a Caesarean section.
'Patient A's clinical condition and the position of the baby's head meant the use of forceps was the most reasonable option in Patient A's and the baby's best interests. A Caesarean section was more likely to cause harm than using the forceps.'
In her evidence Thampi added: 'I appreciate the effects that a traumatic birth can have on a mother and baby. I am very sorry that Patient A had the birthing experience that she did and I have reflected on this deeply.
'It was undoubtedly a tense and difficult delivery and one that I will always remember. I found it truly upsetting to hear Patient A's evidence. I would never wish for any patient to feel the way Patient A feels about her birthing experience. I am very sorry.'
She denied making the comment about it being 'after six o'clock' saying she was contractually obliged to be at work until 7pm. The panel agreed with that assertion but found her guilty of other charges. She was cleared of misconduct charges relating to two other women.
MPTS chair Mrs Tehniat Watson said: 'Whilst the conduct involved one patient a significant number of years ago, the failure to obtain informed consent, Patient A being pressurised into agreeing to a forceps delivery, and inappropriate communication were serious matters and action is needed to mark the seriousness to uphold the wider public interest.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Metro
18 minutes ago
- Metro
Free expert talks, face yoga and astrology at Wild Nutrition's London pop-up!
Metro journalists select and curate the products that feature on our site. If you make a purchase via links on this page we will earn commission – learn more If you're into science-backed supplements, wellness and body confidence you've probably heard of Wild Nutrition. The brand has built a loyal community of +300,000 women looking for smart, nourishing support through all stages of life, from postnatal recovery to perimenopause and beyond. Now, they're bringing their mission to life with the brand's very first London pop-up happening on July 30 and 31 in Notting Hill. And it's shaping up to be a feel-good two-day event packed with movement classes, expert talks, free wellness sessions, and the exclusive launch of a groundbreaking new supplement. WHEN? Wednesday 30th July 2025 – 10am – 8:30pm, and Thursday 31st July 2025 – 9:15am – 6pm WHERE? Wild By Nature Pop-Up Store (230 Portobello Road, London, W11 1LJ) One of the major highlights of the pop-up is the launch of Wild Nutrition's new Weight Management Support supplement, a UK-first botanical formula designed to support metabolism, hormonal balance and energy, while still nourishing the body. Unlike quick-fix injections like Ozempic (which are now used by an estimated 2 million women in the UK and come with a host of side-effects), this science-backed supplement offers a more holistic and sustainable approach. It features Metabolaid®, a clinically proven botanical complex, and is designed for women wanting to support long-term health without compromising their body's needs. To give you a taste of what's on offer at the pop-up event, on Wednesday July 30 from 5:30pm–8:30pm, Wild Nutrition is hosting a powerful and honest conversation about all sides of weight management, from style and confidence to movement, sex, and nutrition. The panel, titled Redefining: Body, Balance and Breakthroughs, will be hosted by writer and podcaster Billie Bhatia, and features an inspiring line-up of voices. Plus, as a bonus, the first 20 people to sign up for the panel will receive a goody bag worth £100, including an early drop of the brand-new Weight Management Support supplement, before it officially goes on sale in August. On Thursday July 31, attendees can expect a full programme of free sessions including a 9:30-10:30am movement session with yoga and breathwork coach Cat Meffan or a 2:00-3:00pm Face yoga session with Luminous Face Yoga. More Trending Sound like your kind of vibe? Whether you're after honest health conversations, want to try something new like face yoga or astrology, or you're just curious about a nourishing alternative to traditional weight-loss trends, Wild Nutrition's pop-up is one to check out. Book your free tickets and see the full line-up over on Eventbrite – but be quick, as spaces are limited and expected to fill fast. Better yet, we've got 20 spots at the exclusive panel event plus a goody bags worth £100 to give-away to Metro readers. Or book in a free 1:1 nutritional consultation here. Follow Metro across our social channels, on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram Share your views in the comments below MORE: Everything you need to know about Korean skincare brand Anua – including our favourite buys MORE: I tried Molly-Mae Hague's holiday makeup routine – and I'm never going back MORE: Bella Hadid reveals 'secret' beauty travel hack – it's none other than this £9.50 skin cream Your free newsletter guide to the best London has on offer, from drinks deals to restaurant reviews.


The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
Streeting to resident doctors: ‘I deeply regret position we find ourselves in'
Wes Streeting has sent a personal letter to NHS resident doctors, saying 'I deeply regret the position we now find ourselves in' as they prepare to strike. The Health Secretary said while he cannot pledge a bigger pay rise, he is committed to progress to improve their working lives. He also said he does not now believe the British Medical Association's resident doctors committee (RDC) has 'engaged with me in good faith' over bids to avert the strike. Thousands of resident doctors are to walk out from 7am on Friday for five days. In the letter sent on Thursday afternoon, seen by the PA news agency, Mr Streeting said: 'I wanted to write to you personally about the situation we find ourselves in. 'This Government came into office, just over a year ago, with a great deal of sympathy for the arguments that resident doctors were making about pay, working conditions and career progression. 'I was determined to build a genuine partnership with the… RDC to make real improvements on all three fronts. 'We have made progress together. While some of my critics in Parliament and the media believe I was naive to agree such a generous pay deal to end the strikes last year, I stand by that choice.' Mr Streeting said he had agreed that pay deal 'because I believed it to be fair', adding resident doctors have now had an average 28.9% pay award under Labour. He added: 'Strike action should always be a last resort – not the action you take immediately following a 28.9% pay award from a Government that is committed to working with you to further improve your lives at work. 'While I've been honest with the BMA RDC that we cannot afford to go further on pay this year, I was prepared to negotiate on areas related to your conditions at work and career progression, including measures that would put money back in the pockets of resident doctors… 'Based on discussions with the BMA RDC leaders between July 8 and 19, I set out three substantive areas where I believed we could work together to make real improvements.' These included tackling the 'arduous' training pathway, and 'I made it clear that I was prepared to agree actions to reduce the costs you face as a result of training', Mr Streeting said. He said he had also been looking at the cost of equipment, food and drink, and 'was prepared to explore how many further training posts could be created – additional to the 1,000 already announced – as early as possible'. Mr Streeting said he had asked the BMA for strikes to be postponed for a 'few weeks so we could work together on a detailed package that could form an offer to you to end this dispute'. He wrote to the RDC on Monday evening setting out a way to avert strike action, which had been discussed with the RDC in draft form, he added. 'I had responded to their requests for where additional information was required,' he said. 'I no longer believe that they have engaged with me in good faith.' Mr Streeting continued: 'I deeply regret the position we now find ourselves in. The public, and I am sure many of you, do not understand the rush to strike action. 'I would like to thank all those that will be turning up to work and supporting their colleagues in providing care for patients despite the challenging circumstances. I urge you to join them. We can achieve more for both doctors and patients by working together.' Later, Mr Streeting said there is 'no getting around the fact that these strikes will hit the progress we are making in turning the NHS around'. He added: 'But I am determined to keep disruption to patients at a minimum and continue with the recovery we have begun delivering in the last 12 months after a decade-and-a-half of neglect. We will not be knocked off course.' Daniel Elkeles, chief executive of NHS Providers, told PA health staff will be working 'flat out' to see as many patients as they can during the strike, after NHS England made clear it wants as much pre-planned care as possible to continue. He said: 'Striking doctors should think carefully if they are really doing the right thing for patients, for the NHS and for themselves. 'NHS trusts will do everything they can to postpone as few appointments as possible… 'The strike will throttle hard-won progress to cut waiting lists, but NHS trust leaders and staff will be working flat out to see that as many patients as possible get the care they need.' The public have been urged to keep coming forward for NHS care during the walkout. GP surgeries will open as usual and urgent care and A&E will continue to be available, alongside 111, NHS England said. Elsewhere, the Health Service Journal (HSJ) reported that NHS chief Sir Jim Mackey had told trust leaders to try to crack down on resident doctors' ability to work locum shifts during the strike and earn money that way. Leaders have also been encouraged to seek 'derogations', where resident doctors are required to work during the strikes, in more circumstances, the HSJ reported. Rory Deighton, acute and community care director at the NHS Confederation, said: 'These strikes were not inevitable – the Government entered negotiations with the BMA in good faith to discuss improving the working and training lives of resident doctors… 'The impact of these strikes and the distress they will cause patients rests with the BMA.' The BMA argues real-terms pay has fallen by around 20% since 2008, and is pushing for full 'pay restoration'. The union is taking out national newspaper adverts on Friday, saying it wants to 'lay bare the significant pay difference between a resident doctor and their non-medically qualified assistants'. It said the adverts 'make clear that while a newly-qualified doctor's assistant is taking home over £24 per hour, a newly-qualified doctor with years of medical school experience is on just £18.62 per hour'. The BMA said Mr Streeting and his officials have refused to continue talks across the strike days and the minister's letter to them 'amounted to nothing more than vague promises on non-pay issues'. RDC co-chairs Dr Melissa Ryan and Dr Ross Nieuwoudt said in a statement: 'Pay erosion has now got to the point where a doctor's assistant can be paid up to 30% more than a resident doctor. That's going to strike most of the public that use the NHS as deeply unfair. 'Resident doctors are not worth less than they were 17 years ago, but unfortunately they've seen their pay erode by more than 21% in the last two decades. We're not working 21% less hard so why should our pay suffer? 'We're asking for an extra £4 per hour to restore our pay. It's a small price to pay for those who may hold your life in their hands.' The statement said Mr Streeting had every opportunity to prevent the strike, and added: 'We want these strikes to be the last we ever have to participate in. 'We are asking Mr Streeting to get back around the table with a serious proposal as soon as possible – this time with the intent to bring this to a just conclusion.'


The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Risk-reducing' surgery could prevent thousands of breast cancer cases
Thousands of breast cancer cases could be averted each year if more women were offered 'risk-reducing' breast removal surgery, a new study suggests. This intervention, known as a mastectomy, is currently used to treat existing cancer or offered to those with a high genetic predisposition, specifically women carrying the BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2 genes. The analysis indicates that approximately 6,500 cases of breast cancer could be prevented annually if preventative mastectomies were more widely adopted. Crucially, the research proposes expanding eligibility beyond the currently recognised genetic markers. Women with other genes linked to increased risk, such as ATM, CHEK2, RAD51C, and RAD51D, may also benefit. Furthermore, the study highlights that a combination of other factors, including a family history of breast cancer, parity (number of children), breastfeeding history, and mammogram density, should be considered in assessing a woman's overall high risk for the disease, potentially making them candidates for risk-reducing mastectomies. Women in the UK have an 11 per cent chance of developing breast cancer across their lifetime. Medics can calculate a woman's risk of breast cancer using tools which combine the effect of various risk factors. Researchers from Queen Mary University of London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) found that if health officials could identify all women aged 30 to 55 who have a 35 per cent or higher risk of breast cancer, and they all went on to have RRM, then an estimated 6,538 breast cancer cases could be prevented in the UK each year. This is the equivalent of around 11 per cent of the 59,000 women in the UK who are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. The academics point out that women who have one of the other genes linked to breast cancer, who may be at high risk of disease, could potentially be found by a mechanism called 'cascade testing' – where genetic tests are offered to family members of women who have been found to have these different genes linked to breast cancer. The economic evaluation study, published in the journal JAMA Oncology, concludes: 'Undergoing RRM appears cost-effective for women at 30-55 years with a lifetime BC-risk 35 per cent (or more). 'The results could have significant clinical implications to expand access to RRM beyond BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 pathogenic variant carriers.' Corresponding author on the paper, Professor Ranjit Manchanda, professor of gynaecological oncology at Queen Mary and consultant gynaecological oncologist, said: 'We for the first time define the risk at which we should offer RRM. 'Our results could have significant clinical implications to expand access to mastectomy beyond those patients with known genetic susceptibility in high penetrance genes- BRCA1/ BRCA2/ PALB2 – who are traditionally offered this. 'This could potentially prevent can potentially prevent (around) 6500 breast cancer cases annually in UK women. 'We recommend that more research is carried out to evaluate the acceptability, uptake, and long-term outcomes of RRM among this group'. Dr Rosa Legood, associate professor in health economics at LSHTM, added: 'Undergoing RRM is cost-effective for women (aged) 30 to 55-years with a lifetime breast cancer risk of 35 per cent or more. 'These results can support additional management options for personalised breast cancer risk prediction enabling more women at increased risk to access prevention.' Women deemed to be at high risk of breast cancer can also be offered regular screening and medication. Louise Grimsdell, Breast Cancer Now senior clinical nurse specialist, said: 'While this modelling provides valuable insights into the cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing mastectomy for women with a high risk of developing breast cancer, each individual must be offered all risk-management options that are suitable for them. 'Choosing to have risk-reducing surgery is a complex and deeply personal decision that comes with emotional and physical implications. 'So, it's vital women can consider all their options, including screening and risk-reducing medications, and are supported by their clinician to make an informed decision that's right for them. 'It's also crucial that the unacceptably long waits that far too many women who chose risk-reducing surgery are facing are urgently tackled.'