Madam Faith Gao has filed a lawsuit against Singapore General Hospital (SGH) and one of its surgeons, claiming that a womb removal surgery she underwent had a detrimental effect on her kidney. She alleges that their negligence during the procedure resulted in the kidney injury. In response, SGH has countersued Madam Gao over unpaid medical bills related to the surgery.
Madam Faith Gao, also known as Faith Ang, has filed a lawsuit against Singapore General Hospital (SGH) and a surgeon who performed surgery to remove her womb and related reproductive parts. She alleges negligence during the procedure, claiming that it resulted in an obstruction of a tube connecting her kidneys to the bladder. As a result, one of her kidneys is said to be functioning at only 6 per cent capacity.
The trial, which opened in the High Court on Tuesday (Jun 25), saw lawyers for Singapore General Hospital (SGH) and the surgeon, Professor Tan Hak Koon, dismissing the lawsuit as “entirely ill-conceived and fuelled by sub-standard advice.” They maintained that the surgery was conducted appropriately and that the obstruction was not caused by Prof Tan.
Representing Madam Faith Gao, Mr David Gan from DG Law presented her case, while a team of lawyers from Legal Clinic, led by Senior Counsel Kuah Boon Theng, defended SGH and Prof Tan.
WHAT HAPPENED
During the opening statements from both Madam Faith Gao and the defendants’ lawyers, it was revealed that the 54-year-old woman had been contemplating surgery for some time. The operation involved the removal of her uterus, ovaries, and fallopian tubes due to severe endometriosis, a condition where tissue resembling the uterine lining grows outside the uterus. Despite undergoing conservative treatment, her condition did not improve.
Madam Gao, who was infertile, had undergone two prior surgeries in 2000 and 2011, as mentioned by her lawyer, Mr. Gan, during his opening statement.
Madam Faith Gao consulted Professor Tan for a second opinion in November 2018 while undergoing treatment at the National University Hospital. After deliberation, she opted to undergo the procedure at Singapore General Hospital (SGH), known as a total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and adhesiolysis.
The surgery, which involved three surgeons, including Prof Tan as the first surgeon, took place at SGH on Jan 4, 2019. Both sides acknowledged in their opening statements that the surgery was uneventful and successful.
Madam Gao was discharged three days later, and according to the defendants’ lawyers, she expressed satisfaction with the surgery during her final consultation with Prof Tan.
Madam Faith Gao experienced intermittent abdominal pain around June 2019 and sought medical attention in December 2019 at another hospital, according to the defendants’ lawyers.
A computed tomography (CT) scan revealed swelling of the left kidney and left ureter, which connects the kidney to the bladder. This was likely caused by an obstruction of the left ureter, resulting in urine buildup.
Senior Counsel Kuah and her team expressed concern that not addressing the obstruction promptly would have led to continued pressure buildup and adverse effects on kidney function.
However, it wasn’t until February 2020 that Madam Gao underwent surgery to remove the left ureteric obstruction or stricture, which the defendants’ lawyers found unclear as to why the delay occurred.
Madam Gao has two witnesses supporting her case – Dr. Lewis Liew, who performed general surgery on her, and Dr. Gong Ing San, an expert in surgery.
According to Madam Gao’s lawyer, Mr. Gan, her two witnesses believe that her claim “has merit.”
Dr. Lewis Liew, a urologist, concluded that the ureal impairment resulted from the surgery conducted by Prof Tan, as stated by Mr. Gan.
Mr. Gan stated that his client would argue that the duty of care provided to her was “inadequate” and that reasonable care was not exercised, resulting in her injury.
HOSPITAL, SURGEON’S RESPONSE; COUNTERCLAIM
In their opening statement, the lawyers representing the defendants asserted that the defendants were not negligent and emphasized that the delay in appropriate treatment for the ureter was a crucial factor in the damage to the plaintiff’s left kidney.
The lawyers questioned Dr. Lewis Liew’s conclusions, stating that he had not made efforts to gather details about how the surgery was performed before attributing the injury to the surgery. They characterized his statement as “baseless and irresponsible” and argued that if Dr. Liew had conducted a thorough investigation, he would have found that the surgery was uneventful and did not involve any operative procedures near the ureters.
The lawyers representing Singapore General Hospital (SGH) and Professor Tan Hak Koon alleged that Dr. Lewis Liew’s initial statement led to confusion and a perception of negligence, prompting Madam Faith Gao to initiate legal action against the defendants. They claimed that Dr. Liew later issued a clarification report, acknowledging that his earlier statement was speculative, but by then, the damage had already been done.
The lawyers emphasized that Madam Gao treated Dr. Liew as an expert witness and noted that Dr. Gong Ing San, while trained as a general surgeon, might not actively perform surgeries presently. They asserted that Dr. Gong lacks qualifications as an Obstetrics and Gynecology (O&G) specialist and therefore cannot provide an expert opinion on a total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and adhesiolysis procedure.
Singapore General Hospital (SGH) has counterclaimed against Madam Faith Gao for S$9,449 (US$6,986) in outstanding hospital bills. Madam Gao’s defence is that these bills should be claimed from her medical insurers. However, her insurer rejected the claim, and SGH’s lawyers argue that Madam Gao remains responsible for her medical bills.
The trial is ongoing before Justice Choo Han Teck.
