A woman withdrew her claim and was ordered to pay S$ 120, 000 ( US$ 88, 400 ) in costs on Thursday ( Jun 27 ) after filing a lawsuit against Singapore General Hospital (SGH) and its surgeon for negligence over a womb removal surgery.  ,
Two weeks after the trial’s opening before Justice Choo Han Teck in the High Court, Madam Faith Gao u- turned her situation against SGH and Professor Tan Hak Koon.  ,
Mdm Gao, 54, also known as Faith Ang, claimed at first that one of her liver was just 6 % functional after the surgery she underwent under Prof. Tan.  ,
Justice Choo ordered Mdm Gao to give SGH’s suit of S$ 9, 449.03 and acknowledged the departure on Thursday. The amount represents the medical costs Mdm Gao owes SGH for her 2019 operation.  ,
Additionally, the judge ordered Mdm Gao to give SGH and Prof. Tan’s shared costs of S$ 120, 000, which he described as a” good number.”  ,
Justice Choo noted that the problems were “quite filter” and that Mdm Gao’s attorney David Gan from DG Law had “put up a brave debate” in a comment on the information that had been presented.  ,
According to the assess,” I think it was a wise decision to advise the claimant to withdraw because the evidence, far as it seems to be, does not provide much in the plaintiff’s favor in its current form,” he continued.  ,
SGH and Prof. Tan were represented by Senior Counsel Kuah Boon Theng and Legal Clinic attorneys.  ,
Mdm Gao underwent a technique, known as a full stomach surgery, diplomatic salpingo- oophorectomy and adhesiolysis, at SGH on Jan 4, 2019 under three doctors.  ,
The first was Prof Tan, a senior analyst physician and gynaecologist. Opening remarks from both sides claimed that the operation was smooth and successful.  ,
However, according to her attorneys, Mdm Gao experienced continuous abdominal pain in June 2019. She then sought medical attention at a different hospital in December 2019.  ,
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 blood and an obstruction of the remaining kidney. If left undiagnosed, this would have adversely affected liver function.  ,
The plaintiffs ‘ attorneys made it clear in court papers that Mdm Gao had just undergone procedure for this problem in February 2020.  ,
To help her situation, Mdm Gao had two testimony, Dr Lewis Liew and Dr Gong Ing San, a common doctor.  , Dr Liew, a physician, had performed common surgeries on Mdm Gao.  ,
Both parties believed that Mdm Gao’s circumstance had merit, with Dr. Liew claiming that Prof. Tan’s operation was to blame for the ureal impairment, according to Mr. Gan.  ,
Both defendants arguing against this claim,  , claimed they were not negligent and that Mdm Gao’s kept kidney’s harm was brought on by a delay in receiving appropriate treatment for the ureter.  ,
They added that Dr. Liew had hardly made an effort to learn how the procedure was carried out before making his “baseless and reckless speech” that it had good caused her harm.
” Had he done that, he had had discovered that the operation was quiet and that no operative procedures were performed in the area of the epididymis,” said the attorneys.
They added that because Mdm Gao had been misled into believing she was a victim of negligence, they had been misled into filing the lawsuit because Dr. Liew had later issued a clarification report saying he had only been” speculating,” and that the damage had been done.  ,
Additionally, the attorneys made it clear that Dr. Gong was not an expert on a diplomatic salpingo-oophorectomy and adhesiolysis and was not a practitioner in obstetrics and gynecology.
Ms. Kuah said in a statement to the media after the trial that” fine feeling prevailed” and that Mdm Gao had withdrawn her situation.  ,
” We frequently advise doctors to avoid casting false aspersions on different specialists without first knowing the facts,” said Ms. Kuah, who is co-coordinator of the Academy of Medicine’s clinical researchers training program.
” Regrettably, I feel that this was exactly what happened in this case”.
She added that the faculty would counsel aspiring medical experts to make sure they have the necessary training and experience and to arm themselves with the necessary information before making comments on a case.
The failure to follow these fundamental rules was probably the cause of this case going to court.