Singapore General Hospital (SGH) is suing the doctor and the doctor who performed the procedure, alleging neglect.
One of Madam Faith Gao’s liver, according to her, simply had 6 % of the total function of the tube that connects her kidneys to the bladder after the operation, according to Faith Ang, who is also known as Faith Ang.
But, Professor Tan Hak Koon, the surgeon’s lawyer, argued that the lawsuit was “entirely ill-conceived and fuelled by sub-standard advice,” arguing that the procedure was carried out properly and that the barrier was not caused by Prof Tan.
The trial, which was led by Senior Counsel Kuah Boon Theng, SGH’s attorney, and Prof. Tan, was first heard in the High Court on Tuesday ( Jun 25 ), with Mr. David Gan from DG Law representing Mdm Gao and a team of legal professionals from Legal Clinic.
WHAT HAPPENED
According to starting claims from both Mdm Gao and the defendants ‘ lawyers, the 54- yr- ancient lady had been considering going under the knife , for some time. Her placenta, eggs, and fallopian tube were removed during the procedure.  ,
She had serious endometriosis, a condition in which cells similar to the covering of the uterus grows outside the uterus, and her condition did not respond to conventional treatment.
Mdm Gao was pregnant and received two previous surgeries in 2000 and 2011, her solicitor, Mr Gan, said in his entry speech.
While receiving medical care at the National University Hospital, she requested a second view from Prof. Tan around November 2018.
She decided to go to SGH for the procedure- known as a full stomach surgery, diplomatic salpingo- oophorectomy and adhesiolysis.
It took place at SGH on Jan 4, 2019, under three doctors. Prof Tan, a top consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, was the first doctor.
Both parties contended in their opening remarks that the procedure went smoothly and successfully.
Three days after Mdm Gao’s discharge, the plaintiffs ‘ attorneys claim that Mdm Gao informed Prof. Tan of her satisfaction with the operation during her last consultation.
But, Mdm Gao developed continuous abdominal discomfort around June 2019. She sought medical attention in December 2019 at another doctor, the accused ‘ attorneys said.
The left kidney and left ureter, which are a tube connecting the kidney to the bladder, allegedly had swelling from a computed tomography ( CT) scan. This was most likely caused by a buildup of urine and an obstruction of the remaining kidney.
Senior Counsel Kuah claimed that preventing the blockage from removing right away would have prevented the tension from continuing to rise, with adverse effects on liver function.
” But, for reasons that are vague to the plaintiffs, it was not until February 2020 that the claimant suddenly underwent surgery to tax the remaining ureteric obstruction or stricture”, said Ms Kuah and her team.
Mdm Gao has two testimony for her circumstance- Dr Lewis Liew, who performed common surgeries on Mdm Gao, and Dr Gong Ing San, an “expert on procedure”.
According to Mdm Gao’s attorney Mr Gan, the two testimony think Mdm Gao’s say “has validity”.
Dr Liew, a physician, concluded that the ureal deficits was due to the operation with Prof Tan, said Mr Gan.  ,
Mr Gan said his client would say that the duty of care provided to her was “inadequate”, and that fair treatment was no exercised, leading to her harm.
HOSPITAL, SURGEON’S RESPONSE, COUNTERCLAIM
The defendants ‘ attorneys claimed in their opening statement that Dr. Liew needs to know about the delay in the proper treatment of the urethra because it was the cause of the defendant’s left kidney’s damage.
They added that Dr. Liew had “made no effort to find out details of how the procedure was really performed” before making his “baseless and reckless speech” that the operation had probably caused her injury.
The lawyers claimed that had he done it, he would have discovered that the surgery was uneven and that no operative procedures had been performed close to the ureters.
They alleged that while Dr Liew later “backtracked” and issued a clarification report saying he had been only” speculating”, the damage had been done.
The plaintiff had been misled into believing that she was a victim of negligence, according to the attorneys for SGH and Prof. Tan.
They claimed that Dr. Liew was treated by Mdm Gao as an expert and that Dr. Gong had received training in general surgery, but it is not known if he continues to perform surgeries today.
” He is certainly not an O&, G specialist, and is not qualified to offer an expert opinion on a total abdominal hysterectomy bilateral salpingo- oophorectomy and adhesiolysis”, said the defendants ‘ lawyers.
SGH had filed a counterclaim against Mdm Gao for S$ 9, 449 ( US$ 6, 986 ) in hospital bills that were left outstanding.
Mdm Gao’s defense claimed that the bills should be submitted to her medical insurers, but her insurer rejected the request, with the hospital’s attorneys contending that Mdm Gao continues to be held accountable for her own medical expenses.
Justice Choo Han Teck is the presenter of the trial.