SINGAPORE: A woman who sued Singapore General Hospital (SGH) and its surgeon for negligence over a womb removal surgery withdrew her claim and was ordered to pay S$120,000 (US$88,400) in costs on Thursday (Jun 27).
Madam Faith Gao u-turned on her case against SGH and Professor Tan Hak Koon two days after the trial opened before Justice Choo Han Teck in the High Court.
Mdm Gao, 54, also known as Faith Ang, initially alleged that the surgery she underwent under Prof Tan caused an obstruction that left one of her kidneys functioning at only 6 per cent.
Justice Choo acknowledged the withdrawal on Thursday and ordered Mdm Gao to pay SGH’s counterclaim of S$9,449.03. The sum forms the outstanding hospital bill Mdm Gao owes to SGH for her surgery in 2019.
The judge also ordered Mdm Gao to pay SGH and Prof Tan joint costs at S$120,000, which he described as a “fair amount”.
Commenting on the evidence presented so far, Justice Choo noted that the issues were “quite narrow” and that Mdm Gao’s lawyer David Gan from DG Law had “put up a valiant dispute”.
“I think in fairness it was a good decision to advise the plaintiff to withdraw because the evidence as far as it so far appears does not lend much in the favour of the plaintiff as it stands,” the judge noted.
SGH and Prof Tan were represented by lawyers from Legal Clinic led by Senior Counsel Kuah Boon Theng.
Mdm Gao underwent a procedure, known as a total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and adhesiolysis, at SGH on Jan 4, 2019 under three surgeons.
The first was Prof Tan, a senior consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist. The surgery was uneventful and successful, according to opening statements from both sides.
However around June 2019, Mdm Gao developed intermittent abdominal pain and sought medical attention at another hospital in December 2019, her lawyers said.
A computed tomography (CT) scan purportedly showed swelling of the left kidney and left ureter, which is a tube connecting the kidney to the bladder. This was likely due to an obstruction of the left ureter, with urine build-up. This would have led to adverse consequences for kidney function if left untreated.
The defendants’ lawyers pointed out in documents that Mdm Gao had only undergone surgery for this issue in February 2020.
To support her case, Mdm Gao had two witnesses, Dr Lewis Liew and Dr Gong Ing San, a general surgeon. Dr Liew, a urologist, had performed general surgery on Mdm Gao.
Both felt that Mdm Gao’s case had merit, with Dr Liew stating that the ureal impairment was due to the surgery with Prof Tan, Mr Gan said.
Arguing against this, both defendants said they were not negligent, and that delay in appropriate treatment for the ureter was the cause of the damage to Mdm Gao’s left kidney.
They added that Dr Liew had not made effort to find out how the surgery was actually performed before making his “baseless and irresponsible statement” that it had likely caused her injury.
“Had he done so, he would have discovered that the surgery was uneventful and there were no operative procedures carried out in the vicinity of the ureters,” said the lawyers.
They added that while Dr Liew had later issued a clarification report saying he had only been “speculating”, the damage had been done, as Mdm Gao had been misled into thinking she was a victim of negligence and commenced the suit.
The lawyers also pointed out that Dr Gong was not a specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology and was not qualified to offer an expert opinion on a total abdominal hysterectomy bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and adhesiolysis.
Speaking to the media after the case, Ms Kuah said she was glad that “good sense prevailed” and that Mdm Gao had withdrawn her case.
“We often advise doctors not to cast baseless aspersions on other doctors without first knowing the facts,” said Ms Kuah, who is faculty co-coordinator of the medical experts training course under the Academy of Medicine.
“Regrettably, I feel that this was exactly what happened in this case.”
She added that the faculty would advise aspiring medical experts to ensure that they have relevant training and experience, and to arm themselves with the necessary information before commenting on a case.
“The fact that these basic rules were not followed was probably why this case ended up in court.”
