SINGAPORE: A person who sued her doctor for negligence after suffering injuries following the birth of her child lost her situation against the physician.  ,
In a decision made on Thursday ( April 3 ), Justice Choo Han Teck determined that Dr. Khoo Chong Kiat’s care of Ms. Cherissa Cheng, who was in her first pregnancy, was not a negligent doctor.
Ms. Cheng, 32, was tear-related, which caused her to spend months excreting faecal matter from her vagina, yet after Dr. Khoo stitched the wound to heal.
Dr. Khoo, 51, works as a top consultant obstetrician and gynecologist at the CK Khoo Clinic for Women & Laparoscopy at the Royal O&G.
Ms. Cheng filed a lawsuit against Dr. Khoo and Royal Clinics of O&, G for clinical negligence, alleging that Dr. Khoo obviated her informed consent before carrying out a number of procedures related to the pregnancy.  ,
She requested damages for pain and suffering, the effects on her quality of life, and the loss of her and her father’s potential profits.
The case was heard in a legal trial that commenced this year on February 4.  ,
Ms. Cheng was female when she consulted Dr. Khoo in September 2019.
She allegedly told Dr. Khoo that her mother had labored for a long time because her womb wasn’t dilating at her first consultation, and she finally received an emergency caesarean section. Although she expressed doubts about natural delivery, Dr. Khoo assured her that delivery may be possible normally.
At around 12:05 am, Ms. Cheng was admitted to Mount Elizabeth Novena Hospital for labor to get induced on May 2, 2020.  ,
Dr. Khoo informed Ms. Cheng that she consented to an incident C-section at 9.25 am on May 3, 2020.  ,
However, Dr. Khoo then informed her that he wanted to” try something” to see if Ms. Cheng was continue having healthy babies. According to Ms Cheng, he therefore performed a second cervical sweep, or physically widening, Ms Cheng claims. Dr. Khoo contests this, claiming that all he did was have an genital exam.  ,
Dr. Khoo even incisioned Ms. Cheng’s stomach to aid in labor, and then applied pressure to her abdomen.  ,
On May 3, Ms. Cheng delivered her child via biological delivery at around 10.35 am.
According to Ms. Cheng, Dr. Khoo’s activities amounted to power.  ,
After being discharged, Ms. Cheng noticed intestinal problem pouring from her womb. She informed Dr. Khoo and went see him on May 6.  ,
According to Ms. Cheng, Dr. Khoo claimed there were cracks in the lace he had performed and that there was an abnormal connection between her urethra and vagina.
About six months after the birth of her child, Ms. Cheng had surgery to heal her wounds.
She claimed that she experienced challenges bonding with her baby as a result of the incident and post-partum melancholy and post-traumatic stress disorder.  ,
Dr. Khoo responded to Ms. Cheng’s assertions that he had “provided enough description” regarding the use and benefits of the cervical sweep and that it was not typical practice to obtain consent.  ,
Dr. Khoo argued that since these were regular procedures for natural vaginal deliveries, it was not a good idea to obtain formal consent before making an incision and applying pressure.  ,
Both sides produced professional testimony who gave their views on the processes.  ,
Before moving forward with it, Dr. Khoo’s testimony that he had explained the purpose and procedure to Ms. Cheng was accepted.  ,
He noted that frequently there were many methods and regular steps in medical treatments.
He claimed that it would be absurd for doctors to require their assent for each individual work during a medical procedure.  ,
The prosecutor argued that Dr. Khoo may have taken note of the tear and its maintenance process, but that his version of events was untrue.
Never intended as a sleeve against possible litigation, medical notes and reports are prepared to “document crucial facts about health administration.” Because many events frequently occur together in clinical practice, it is difficult for doctors to take historical notes of every move of every treatment they go through throughout the day.  ,
Given Ms. Cheng’s exhaustion, he determined that Dr. Khoo had not been careless in applying stress to her belly to ease her labor.  ,
Because the baby’s head was unable to inflict such a tear, according to Justice Choo, it was improbable that Dr. Khoo’s exertion caused the break.  ,  ,
In order to repair Ms. Cheng’s pull, the judge determined that Dr. Khoo took the necessary precautions.  ,
According to Justice Choo, it is obvious that Dr. Khoo was not careless because a respectable body of clinical mind supported his diagnosis, cure, and treatment of Ms. Cheng, referring to Dr. Khoo’s experts ‘ analysis of the risks and advantages of the medical procedures in his situation and produced a justifiable mind.  ,
He determined that Dr. Khoo’s handling of Ms. Cheng’s labor and delivery did not constitute battery.  ,
Justice Choo rejected Ms. Cheng’s S$ 36, 000 ( US$ 26, 800 ) claim for loss of earning capacity and noted that there was no loss at all.  ,
Ms. Cheng’s manager at the funeral home clarified that her termination was caused by the restructuring of the business rather than by her medical condition.
The judge noted that Ms. Cheng had been offered a redesigned role but had rejected it and was able to make the same or higher salaries in other positions as her.  ,
She left those positions because she realized the roles were “boredom,”” not as meaningful,” or” not a good fit” for her, not out of any disability or long-term effects from the injury sustained during her delivery. She is now a homemaker, but she acknowledges that she can work and has been searching for a new job, according to the judge.  ,
Justice Choo argued that these additional costs would have been paid for even if she had not suffered the injury while giving birth.  ,
Justice Choo claimed,” I find that Ms. Cheng has failed to prove her case, and the action has been dropped.”  ,