JU v See Tho Kai Yin: Negligence & Breach of Contract in Down Syndrome Birth

In JU and Another v See Tho Kai Yin, the Singapore High Court addressed claims of negligence and breach of contract against Dr. See Tho Kai Yin, an obstetrician and gynaecologist, following the birth of the plaintiffs' son with Down's syndrome. The plaintiffs alleged that Dr. See failed to advise them about the risk of having a baby with Down's syndrome and the option of terminating the pregnancy. The court, presided over by Justice Lai Siu Chiu, dismissed the claims, finding that Dr. See had met the standard of care expected of him and that the plaintiffs had not proven that any breach of duty caused their alleged losses.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Claims of both plaintiffs dismissed with costs to the defendants.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case involving a claim of negligence and breach of contract against a doctor after a child was born with Down syndrome.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
JUPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost
See Tho Kai YinDefendantIndividualJudgment for DefendantWon
APlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
V K RaiV K Rai and Partners
Terence TanRodyk and Davidson
Lek Siang PhengRodyk and Davidson

4. Facts

  1. The first plaintiff was 44 years old when she conceived the second plaintiff.
  2. The second plaintiff was born with Down's syndrome.
  3. The first plaintiff consulted the first defendant, an obstetrician and gynaecologist, for her pregnancy.
  4. The first plaintiff had a McDonald stitch procedure done in Japan.
  5. The first defendant determined the first plaintiff was 24 to 25 weeks pregnant at the first consultation.
  6. The first plaintiff wanted the first defendant to deliver her baby by Caesarean section on the first day of the Chinese New Year.
  7. The first plaintiff consulted another doctor, Dr Lee Wei Hong, after her second consultation with the first defendant.

5. Formal Citations

  1. JU and Another v See Tho Kai Yin, Suit 406/2003, [2005] SGHC 140

6. Timeline

DateEvent
First plaintiff's birth date.
First plaintiff married the husband in a customary ceremony in China.
First plaintiff met the husband in Shanghai.
First plaintiff left China for Japan.
First plaintiff flew to West Malaysia for business.
First plaintiff left Malaysia for Shanghai to meet the husband.
First plaintiff consulted a gynaecologist at the Bo Ai Humanity Hospital of Shanghai and discovered she was pregnant.
First plaintiff consulted her Japanese physician who referred her to Dr Tohru Morisada.
First plaintiff telephoned the first defendant from Japan.
First plaintiff telephoned the first defendant from Japan.
First plaintiff underwent an ultrasonic examination at the Saisekai Utsunomia Hospital in Japan.
First plaintiff underwent surgery to stitch up her cervix in Japan.
Dr Morisada issued a report.
First plaintiff left Japan for West Malaysia.
First plaintiff telephoned the Clinic to make an appointment with the first defendant.
The first defendant left Singapore for Australia.
First plaintiff returned to Singapore.
The first defendant returned to Singapore.
First plaintiff consulted the first defendant.
First plaintiff's second appointment with the first defendant.
First plaintiff failed to keep her third appointment with the first defendant.
First plaintiff consulted Dr Lee Wei Hong.
Second plaintiff was born by Caesarean delivery.
Plaintiffs filed this suit.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no breach of contract.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that the doctor did not breach his duty of care.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of duty
      • Standard of care
  3. Wrongful Life Claim
    • Outcome: The court rejected the wrongful life claim as contrary to public policy.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Duty of Care
    • Outcome: The court determined when a doctor-patient relationship giving rise to a duty of care is established.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for breach of contract
  2. Damages for negligence
  3. Damages for pain and hardship suffered by the second plaintiff

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Medical Malpractice
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Khoo James v Gunapathy d/o MuniandyCourt of AppealYes[2002] 2 SLR 414SingaporeAffirmed the standard of care required of a medical practitioner in Singapore is that set out in the Bolam test.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management CommitteeN/AYes[1957] 1 WLR 582England and WalesEstablished the Bolam test for determining negligence in medical cases.
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health AuthorityHouse of LordsYes[1998] AC 232England and WalesConfirmed the Bolam test and emphasized the need for a logical basis for medical opinions.
McKay v Essex Area Health AuthorityN/AYes[1982] 1 QB 1166England and WalesAddressed the issue of wrongful life claims and public policy considerations.
Burton v Islington Health AuthorityN/AYes[1992] QB 204England and WalesAddressed the duties owed by a doctor to an unborn child.
Yeo Peng Hock Henry v Pai LilyN/AYes[2001] 4 SLR 571SingaporeCited by the plaintiffs, but the court found it not relevant due to different facts.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 40A r 3 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Termination of Pregnancy Act (Cap 324, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Down's syndrome
  • McDonald stitch
  • Amniocentesis
  • Foetal abnormality
  • Duty of care
  • Bolam test
  • Wrongful life claim
  • Termination of pregnancy
  • Antenatal diagnosis
  • FISH test

15.2 Keywords

  • Medical negligence
  • Breach of contract
  • Down syndrome
  • Wrongful life
  • Obstetrician
  • Gynaecologist
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Medical Malpractice90
Negligence80
Contract Law70
Wrongful life claim60
Family Law30

16. Subjects

  • Medical Law
  • Contract Law
  • Tort Law
  • Family Law