NUS in 2 new negligence lawsuits

The National University Hospital (NUH) after settling the issue of compensation in one negligence case, has now been hit with 2 new negligence lawsuits.

In the first case, the patient Derrick Peh was completely paralysed after surgery on his shoulder in 2006. He suffered a cardio-pulmonary collapse during the operation. He later died of pneumonia this year, some 3 years after the alleged negligence by NUS. It is likely that since the death took place quite a while after the surgery, issues of causation would be prominent in the case. His family would have to prove that the alleged negligence led to his death. In medical circles, it is well-known that immobility especially in elderly patients, often leads to death from respiratory diseases.

In the second case, the patient, who requested that her name not be mentioned (although her name can be found by any lawyer who is willing to pay for a court search), is suing for alleged mistakes in her cancer treatment. It is claimed that a needle was inserted into her heart and instead of her liver. This later resulted in her undergoing open heart surgery, as a result of which, she is unable to work. This writer expects that her claim would be for any permanent impairment in her lifestyle as well as for loss of income.

In both the above cases, the families are seeking $500,000 as damages.

NUH kidney transplant suit - appeal dropped

After losing a lawsuit in relation to a kidney transplant gone wrong which caused the death of Madam Narindar Kaur , National University Hospital (NUH) has dropped the appeal against the decision. The High Court decision in July this year had found 2 doctors not negligent but found the hospital guilty of negligence. However, the issue of damages was to be assessed later. This can be quite a tedious process as lawyers and the court estimate the life expectancy of the deceased and how much income the deceased person would have earned in the future, and this may also be painful for the family.

NUS had settled the issue of damages on confidential terms with Madam Kaur's family. It is likely that in return for the certainty of compensation and quick payment, they accepted less than what the court might have otherwise ordered. An appeal to the Court of Appeal from the High Court decision and the actual assessment of damages might have added 6 to 12 months to the date when payment of damages (if any) would have been made to the family.

NUH lawsuit won by patient and family

In July 2009, the High Court released its judgment in the case of the lawsuit concerning the death of kidney donor Narindar Kaur. She had died as a result of internal bleeding following an kidney transplant operation.

The court found that the 2 defendant doctors, Li Man Kay and David Consigliere, were not guilty of negligence as they had followed accepted practice. However, the National University Hospital was found to be negligent. This was because the Hospital had failed to monitor the deceased's medical condition to detect post-surgery complications. Unfortunately, a key witness, a Filipino nurse who could have shed light on what exactly happened during a critical period following the operation, returned to her home and was not available to testify in court.

As the court had decided on liability (that one of the defendants is liable), the next stage is quantum assessment - where the court will assess the damages payable to the family of the deceased.

As a result of the lawsuit, NUS now takes additional precautions - following surgery, all donor-patients are placed in a high dependency ward for 24 hours. There, all their vital signs are monitored continuously, before being sent to the general ward.

Medical negligence - the Bolitho case

The case of Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] 4 All ER 771 is a test applied in medical negligence lawsuits.

The Singapore Court of Appeal, Singapore's highest court, in Dr James Khoo v Gunapathy [2002] 2 SLR 414; [2002] SGCA 25, accepted the Bolam test (please see a previous post) as modified by the Bolitho case.

The qualification added by the Bolitho case is the practice accepted by a responsible body of medical men must be logical. If there is no logical basis for the practice, then the practice will not be defensible in court. This is the limited extent to which the courts will examine medical procedures.

Bolam Test

The Bolam Test is a well-known test applied primarily in medical negligence lawsuits. It is sometimes applied in other areas of professional negligence although this should only be done with caution.

The Bolam test takes its name from Bolam v Friern Hospital ([1957] 1 WLR 583) where the judge held that a professional is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art. In other words, even if some other medical professionals disagree with what was done, the defendant doctor can still win the lawsuit even some responsible doctors agree with this actions.

There are some who take the view that this approach unduly protects the medical profession. In Singapore, the Bolam test was accepted by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Dr James Khoo v Gunapathy [2002] 2 SLR 414; [2002] SGCA 25, subject to the constraints laid down in the later case of Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232; [1997] 4 All ER 771 . This later case will be discussed in a later posting

[The letters and numbers appearing after the name of a case are its citation. This is useful for lawyers when it comes to finding the case in the library. For instance, [2002] 2 SLR 414 means that the case is in the Singapore Law Reports volume 2 for the year 2002 at page 414.]

Gunapathy v Dr James Khoo (post 1)

In this case, the parties were -

Plaintiff - Gunapathy d/o Muniandy (Ms)

Defendants - Dr James Khoo, Dr Khor Tong Hong, and the Neurological Surgery Pte Ltd (which was Dr Khoo's clinic).

The defendants were sued for professional negligence in the diagnosis, treatment and advice given to the plaintiff in relation to her brain tumour. She claimed that the doctors had unnecessarily advised her to undergo radiosurgery treatment which unfortunately resulted in serious disability to her after the treatment. She suffered from among other symptoms, partial paralysis and from severe speech defects and was wheelchair bound. She was unable to run her family business and needed permanent medical care for the rest of her life.

At the High Court, Selvam J. in his 354 page judgment, awarded her damages which were over $2.5 million, taking into account her loss salary of $12,000 a month. This was perhaps the largest damages award for a personal injury claim and for a medical negligence case.

There were rumours that the defendants and their insurers offered to settle the case for about $2 million in damages but this was rejected. Regardless of whether this was accurate. the case went to the Court of Appeal.

medical negligence lawsuit against NUH

Persons involved in the National University Hospital lawsuit -

Plaintiffs - Surinder Singh (husband of deceased patient Narindar Kaur), Minda Kour (mother of the deceased)

Defendants - NUH, doctors Li Man Kay and David Consigliere

Lawyers (counsel) -
Plaintiffs- S. Palaniappan of Straits Law Practice.
Defendants : NUH - Kelvin Poon, Edwin Tong for doctors

Medical negligence lawsuit - NUH

A lawsuit was filed last year against National University Hospital (NUH) and 2 specialist doctors in respect of a kidney transplant between a donor wife and her husband. The husband, Surinder Singh, received the kidney successfully but his wife, Narinder Kaur, bled to death soon after the operation. It is understood that the High Court has recently been asked to set trial dates.

The coroner's inquest found that clips used to close off the wife's major artery had slipped off.

The hospital and 2 doctors are represented by law firms Allen and Gledhill, and Rajah and Tann.
The husband is represented by S. Palaniappan of Straits Law Practice.