F v Chan Tanny: Medical Negligence, Duty of Care of Gynaecologist, Causation of Infant Injury

In F v Chan Tanny, the Singapore High Court addressed a claim of medical negligence against Dr. Chan, a gynaecologist, brought by F, an infant, through her mother. F alleged negligence in the monitoring and management of the pregnancy and delivery, leading to F's subarachnoid haemorrhage, intrauterine pneumonia, and ventricular septal defect. The court, presided over by Justice Lai Kew Chai, dismissed the claim, finding that Dr. Chan had not breached her duty of care and that the infant's condition was due to developmental causes, not negligence. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence or causation.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case: F, infant, sues Dr. Chan for negligence during pregnancy and delivery. Court dismisses claim, finding no breach of duty or causation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
FPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost
Chan TannyDefendantIndividualJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Kew ChaiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kwok-Chern Yew TeeLawrence Chua and Partners
Mak Moo ThengLawrence Chua and Partners
Edwin TongAllen and Gledhill
Karen EuAllen and Gledhill

4. Facts

  1. F was born on 12 December 1998 and diagnosed with subarachnoid haemorrhage, intrauterine pneumonia, and a ventricular septal defect.
  2. Mdm C first consulted Dr Chan on 15 April 1998 when she was five weeks pregnant.
  3. Dr Chan managed Mdm C's pregnancy, which included 16 antenatal visits.
  4. Ultrasound scans showed placental calcification in the later stages of pregnancy.
  5. A CTG was performed on 28 November 1998, with varying interpretations of its results.
  6. Mdm C was admitted to the maternity unit on 11 December 1998 in early labor.
  7. Vacuum extraction was used to assist in the delivery of F.

5. Formal Citations

  1. F v Chan Tanny, Suit 1554/2001, [2003] SGHC 192

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mdm C first consulted Dr Chan when she was five weeks pregnant.
Mdm C was seen by Dr Chan when she was nine weeks pregnant.
Mdm C telephoned Dr Chan complaining of lower abdominal pain and slight breathlessness.
Mdm C was seen by Dr Chan when she was 12 weeks pregnant.
Dr Chan reviewed Mdm C, who was 16 weeks pregnant.
Mdm C underwent a glucose tolerance test.
Dr Chan telephoned Mdm C and informed her of the results of her blood test.
Mdm C attended her next medical review.
Dr Chan reviewed Mdm C, who was 22 weeks pregnant.
Mdm C was reviewed when she was 25 weeks pregnant.
Mdm C was reviewed when she was 28 weeks pregnant.
Mdm C was reviewed when she was 30 weeks pregnant.
Mdm C was reviewed when she was into her 32nd week of pregnancy.
Mdm C was reviewed when she was at 34 weeks of pregnancy.
Mdm C was reviewed.
Mdm C was reviewed when she was 36 weeks into pregnancy.
Review of Mdm C.
Mdm C was reviewed when she was 38+ weeks into gestation.
Mdm C consulted Dr Chan at 11.50am.
F was delivered at 10.08am.
Dr Chan checked the patient at 8.00am in the ward.
Dr Chan checked on the patient.
Dr Chan checked on the patient. Mdm C was discharged.
The baby was discharged.
First MRI report was done on the baby.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Duty of Care
    • Outcome: The court found that Dr. Chan did not breach her duty of care in managing the pregnancy and delivery.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to consider placental calcification
      • Incorrect interpretation of CTG
      • Failure to perform timely Caesarean section
    • Related Cases:
      • [1957] 2 All ER 118
      • [1997] 3 WLR 1151
      • [2001] 4 SLR 571
  2. Causation
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that any alleged breach of duty by Dr. Chan caused or materially contributed to the infant's injuries.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether the injury suffered was caused or materially contributed to by any breach of care
    • Related Cases:
      • [1956] AC 613

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for pain and suffering
  2. Loss of amenities
  3. Consequential losses

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Medical Malpractice
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management CommitteeN/AYes[1957] 2 All ER 118N/ACited for the Bolam test, which states that a doctor is not in breach of duty if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular field.
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health AuthorityN/AYes[1997] 3 WLR 1151N/ACited for modifying the Bolam test, stating that a judge can disregard a body of medical opinion if it is not reasonable or logically supported.
Yeo Peng Hock Henry v Pai LilyN/AYes[2001] 4 SLR 571SingaporeCited for the application of the Bolam and Bolitho tests in Singapore, referencing LP Thean JA's judgment.
Bonnington Castings v WardlawN/AYes[1956] AC 613N/ACited for the principle that a plaintiff must prove negligence or breach of duty and that such fault caused or materially contributed to their injury.
Whitehouse v JordanN/AYes[1980] 1 All ER 650N/ACited to illustrate the inherent dangers of childbirth and that a negative outcome does not automatically imply negligence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Medical negligence
  • Duty of care
  • Causation
  • Placental calcification
  • CTG
  • Vacuum extraction
  • Subarachnoid haemorrhage
  • Intrauterine pneumonia
  • Ventricular septal defect
  • Amniocentesis
  • Prostin E2
  • Syntocinon
  • Apgar score

15.2 Keywords

  • Medical negligence
  • Gynaecologist
  • Duty of care
  • Causation
  • Pregnancy
  • Delivery
  • Infant injury
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Medical Negligence95
Breach of Duty of Care80
Causation70
Gynaecology60
Obstetrics60
Personal Injury30
Evidence20

16. Subjects

  • Medical Law
  • Tort Law
  • Obstetrics
  • Gynaecology