Supuletchimi v Tay Boon Keng: Medical Negligence, Spinal Instability & Failed Back Surgery
In Supuletchimi d/o Rajoogopal v Tay Boon Keng and Others, the High Court of Singapore addressed a medical negligence claim brought by Supuletchimi against Dr. Tay Boon Keng and Singapore General Hospital Pte Ltd. Supuletchimi alleged that Dr. Tay and other doctors at SGH were negligent in treating her chronic back pain between 1992 and 1997. The court, presided over by Lee Seiu Kin JC, dismissed the action, finding that Dr. Tay did not breach his duty of care in not diagnosing or investigating spinal instability, as the plaintiff failed to prove she had the condition and the defendant's actions were supported by a responsible body of medical opinion.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Action dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Medical negligence claim against Dr. Tay for failing to diagnose spinal instability. The court dismissed the claim, finding no breach of duty.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore General Hospital Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won | |
| Supuletchimi d/o Rajoogopal | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tay Boon Keng | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | |
| The Attorney-General's Chambers | Defendant | Government Agency | Action Discontinued | Withdrawn |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff suffered chronic back pain since 1977 and was treated at Singapore General Hospital.
- Dr. Tay was the Plaintiff's primary physician at SGH from 1992 to 1997.
- Plaintiff underwent two previous surgeries in 1979 and 1982 for prolapsed intervertebral disc.
- Plaintiff claimed Dr. Tay was negligent in not diagnosing spinal instability.
- Plaintiff sought treatment at National University Hospital in 1997 and underwent surgery by Prof. Aziz.
- Prof. Aziz diagnosed root canal stenosis and performed a spinal fusion.
- Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Ransford, opined that Dr. Tay should have investigated for spinal instability.
- Defendants' experts opined that Dr. Tay's treatment was within the acceptable standard of care.
5. Formal Citations
- Supuletchimi d/o Rajoogopal v Tay Boon Keng and Others, Suit 210/2000Y, [2002] SGHC 31
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff suffered a fall at work. | |
| Plaintiff underwent first surgery performed by Dr. William Fung. | |
| Plaintiff underwent second surgery performed by Dr. William Fung. | |
| Plaintiff was admitted to SGH and requested to be under the care of Dr. Tay. | |
| Plaintiff had a fall at home and was admitted to SGH. | |
| Plaintiff went to NUH and was seen by Prof. Aziz. | |
| Plaintiff underwent surgery performed by Prof. Aziz. | |
| Plaintiff filed the writ in this action. | |
| Plaintiff discontinued the action against the third Defendant. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court found that Dr. Tay did not breach his duty of care in not diagnosing or investigating spinal instability.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to diagnose spinal instability
- Failure to investigate spinal instability
- Related Cases:
- [1957] 2 All ER 118
- [1998] AC 232
- Standard of Care
- Outcome: The court applied the Bolam test and found that Dr. Tay's actions were supported by a responsible body of medical opinion.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Application of the Bolam test
- Reasonableness of medical opinion
- Related Cases:
- [1957] 2 All ER 118
- [1998] AC 232
- Causation
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff had not proved that she had spinal instability.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether the alleged breach caused injury to the plaintiff
- Whether the plaintiff had spinal instability
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for Negligence
9. Cause of Actions
- Medical Negligence
- Breach of Contractual Duty
10. Practice Areas
- Medical Malpractice Litigation
- Personal Injury Law
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee | N/A | Yes | [1957] 2 All ER 118 | N/A | Approved and applied the Bolam test for determining the standard of care in medical negligence cases. |
| Hunter v Hanley | N/A | Yes | [1955] SLT 213 | Scotland | Cited within Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, defining negligence in diagnosis or treatment. |
| Whitehouse v Jordan | N/A | Yes | [1981] 1 All ER 267 | N/A | Approved Bolam's case regarding the standard of care for doctors. |
| Maynard v West Midlands Regional Health Authority | N/A | Yes | [1985] 1 All ER 635 | N/A | Approved Bolam's case and the passage from Hunter v Hanley. |
| Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital | N/A | Yes | [1985] 1 All ER 643 | N/A | Discussed the Bolam principle in the context of a doctor's duty of care. |
| Chin Keow v Government of Malaysia | N/A | Yes | [1967] 1 WLR 813 | Malaysia | Approved the Bolam test in a Privy Council appeal from Malaysia. |
| Vasuhi Ramasamypillai v Tan Tock Seng Hospital Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR 165 | Singapore | Applied Bolam's case in the High Court of Singapore. |
| Yeo Peng Hock Henry v Pai Lily | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 571 | Singapore | Accepted the authority of Bolam's case and Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority. |
| Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority | N/A | Yes | [1998] AC 232 | N/A | Central to the Plaintiff’s submission, clarifying the Bolam test and requiring that medical opinions have a logical basis. |
| P.P. v Tubbs | N/A | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 75 | Singapore | Discussed the assessment of expert witness demeanor in evaluating the reliability of their opinions. |
| Wong Swee Chin v P.P. | Federal Court | Yes | [1981] 1 MLJ 212 | Malaysia | Cited provisions of the Malaysian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility and use of expert opinions. |
| Saeng-Un Udom v P.P. | N/A | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 1 | Singapore | Stated that the court may not venture its own opinion on a matter that is clearly outside its scope of technical competence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Spinal Instability
- Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc
- Failed Back Surgery Syndrome
- Bolam Test
- Bolitho Test
- Medical Negligence
- Duty of Care
- Standard of Care
- Causation
- Root Canal Stenosis
- Epidural Fibrosis
- Cervical Spondylosis
- Discectomy
- Spinal Fusion
15.2 Keywords
- Medical Negligence
- Spinal Instability
- Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc
- Bolam Test
- Singapore
- High Court
- SGH
- NUH
- Expert Witness
- Causation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Medical Negligence | 95 |
| Negligence | 60 |
| Personal Injury | 30 |
| Evidence | 20 |
| Measure of Damages | 10 |
| Contract Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Medical Law
- Negligence Law
- Spinal Disorders
- Orthopaedic Surgery