Surgeon who arrived at Warrington hospital after drinking 'two thirds of bottle of vodka' suspended
Doctor Vivek Vaitikutti blamed his drinking on stress caused by resident doctor strikes
Last updated 18th Dec 2025
A surgeon has been suspended for nine months for being drunk at work, which a tribunal heard he blamed on a strike by junior doctors.
Dr Vivek Vatikutti was said to have drunk "up to two-thirds of a 750ml bottle of vodka" before arriving at Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, where he was practising as a surgical registrar, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) hearing was told.
A colleague accused Dr Vatikutti of being intoxicated after they smelled alcohol on his breath during a surgical handover on September 22, 2023.
The tribunal found his actions were a "real risk to patient safety" and that the "public would be appalled at his conduct".
Dr Vatikutti told the tribunal he drank alcohol the night before his shift because he was feeling "stressed and tired, due to the heavier workload he had faced when other junior doctors were on strike and he was not".
The tribunal heard that after working a shift on Thursday September 21 that year, he "had been feeling exhausted, especially as there were no junior doctors working". Junior doctors are now called resident doctors.
The panel was told Dr Vatikutti bought a Chinese takeaway on his way home and then drank vodka at around 8.30pm or 9pm and went to bed before midnight.
He woke at around 7.15am the next day but missed breakfast because he was late for work and the doctor told the tribunal "he did not believe that he was under the influence of alcohol or that his performance was impacted".
The surgeon said he accepted he would not have been safe to drive but "felt OK, and no-one complained".
After blood tests the surgeon was found to have had a blood alcohol level of 48mg/dl.
Dr Vatikutti, who qualified in India but has been working in the NHS for the last 10 years, told the tribunal he felt "guilty" and was "very sorry that he had gone to work".
The tribunal found his behaviour constituted very serious misconduct, adding he had shown "very little insight into the risks his behaviour posed to patients, colleagues and the reputation of the profession".
It accepted it was a single incident of misconduct during his "lengthy career" and he had no previous adverse history.
The tribunal concluded a suspension for nine months was the appropriate and proportionate response.