Doctor, who accessed Kulsoom Nawaz’s room, drops case against GEO

LONDON: Dr Naveed Farooq, a physician at the UK's National Health Service (NHS), has dropped his case against GEO TV — in which he alleged a breach of data protection and sought financial damages — just days before a key court hearing related to his unauthorised entry into the hospital room of the late Begum Kulsoom Nawaz.

In October 2024, Dr Farooq filed the claim, accusing GEO TV of having reported unfairly on an incident in 2018, when he entered the private hospital room of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s wife, who was under cancer treatment at a Harley Street clinic in London.

Having already lost a related complaint against GEO with Ofcom (Office of Communications), Dr Farooq moved the court.

Ofcom is the government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting, internet, telecommunications and postal industries of the UK.

The case was scheduled to be heard at the Central London County Court on March 19, 2025. However, on March 12, 2025, he filed a notice of discontinuance, effectively ending the case.

The claim stemmed from a June 2018 in]cident in which Dr Farooq accessed her room in the Intensive Care Unit without any authorisation from the patient or her family.

According to Hussain Nawaz, Nawaz’s son, Dr Farooq had posed as a staff doctor, breached hospital security, and entered the room, causing concern for the family. Police conducted an identity check, questioned him, and allowed him to leave.

GEO and other Pakistani media outlets reported the incident at the time.

Dr Farooq later complained to Ofcom, alleging he had been falsely portrayed as a suspect, criminal, and intruder, damaging his reputation. After the investigation, Ofcom rejected his complaint.

Ofcom found that, regardless of his intent, Dr Farooq had entered the patient’s room without a professional or personal connection, misrepresented himself to staff, and discussed her care with a medical professional.

The ruling stated that GEO TV had taken “reasonable care to satisfy itself that material facts were not presented, disregarded or omitted in the programme in a way that resulted in unfairness.”

It also found that GEO was not required to offer Dr Farooq a right of reply to avoid unfairness. His complaint of unjust or unfair treatment was not upheld.