There are many members of the public who have found that their complaints have been thrown out by the General Medical Council. Now, a little known case the GMC likes to conceal is my challenge against the GMC. Doctors generally never cared about the impact of this case on them. That is essentially their loss. The net result of the update of vexatious complaints is of course prolonged investigations that doctors do not cope with. Despite this, no doctor has asked the GMC why there is an update of silly complaints against them. On the other hand, few patients know that there is a case that states that their complaint must be addressed by the Registrar of the GMC. The judgment is all about a public internet "link". The GMC investigated this public link as a serious complaint under stream 1. It follows, if they can investigate a "link" and justify its investigation in court, why can't they investigate every clinical wrong done by a doctor. Well, this judgment means they can. Just that they rely on the public not knowing about this judgment. Patients and public who have been wronged by the medical profession should care about this judgment because it supports the proactive investigation of complaints under Stream 1. Now, the judgment http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/1061.html&query=Rita+and+Pal&method=boolean is an interesting one for members of the public. In summary, Justice Collins states that "anything" that goes to the integrity of a doctor can be investigated under Stream 1 of the GMC's procedures. Moreover, he essentially states that the Medical Act gives the GMC all the rights to investigate while ignoring the Human Rights Act. It means the Human Rights Act doesn't apply to doctors. We must therefore believe what the judge tells us. This is the judgment that will ensure that the Registrar of the General Medical Council is obliged to push forward any complaint that "goes to the integrity" of the doctor. This means, the complaint made by a member of the public MUST be investigated. I am developing a short e-book for members of the public. Hopefully, it will give the public the secrets on how to handle the GMC when complaining about their doctor. For avoidance of doubt, the complainant in my case was convicted of stalking a well known author. I was cleared of the allegations against me and this was a test case to protect doctors. As the test case effectively was unsuccessful, it should now be used for patients and the public to ensure the GMC investigates their case. Hope that helps. This is the media write up of the case http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/21/gmc_rita_pal/ . It should be noted that the GMC defended their position and went miles to mislead the court to win their case. As they care so much for "patient safety", its only right and proper that the public use this case to further their investigations. Afterall, the GMC must stand by their position of "public interest".