Gobinathan Devathasan v Singapore Medical Council: Professional Misconduct & Therapeutic Ultrasound

Dr. Gobinathan Devathasan appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the Singapore Medical Council's (SMC) Disciplinary Committee's (DC) decision, which found him guilty of professional misconduct under the Medical Registration Act for inappropriately administering Therapeutic Ultrasound to Madam Thio Tjoei Ing. The High Court, comprising Chan Sek Keong CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and V K Rajah JA, allowed the appeal, finding that the DC had erred in its decision-making process and that the charge was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal by Dr. Devathasan against SMC's decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct for inappropriate Therapeutic Ultrasound administration. Appeal allowed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Gobinathan DevathasanAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWonMyint Soe, Xu Daniel Atticus
Singapore Medical CouncilRespondentStatutory BoardAppeal DismissedLostAlvin Yeo, Melanie Ho, Sean La'Brooy, Kylee Kwek

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Sek KeongChief JusticeNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Myint SoeMyintsoe & Selvaraj
Xu Daniel AtticusMyintsoe & Selvaraj
Alvin YeoWong Partnership LLP
Melanie HoWong Partnership LLP
Sean La'BrooyWong Partnership LLP
Kylee KwekWong Partnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. Dr. Devathasan administered rTMS and Therapeutic Ultrasound to the Patient.
  2. The Patient had a chronic and complicated neurological syndrome.
  3. The Disciplinary Committee found Dr. Devathasan guilty of professional misconduct for administering Therapeutic Ultrasound.
  4. The Disciplinary Committee acquitted Dr. Devathasan on the charge related to rTMS.
  5. The Patient's husband and daughter-in-law lodged the complaint against Dr. Devathasan.
  6. The High Court allowed Dr. Devathasan's appeal, setting aside the conviction.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Gobinathan Devathasan v Singapore Medical Council, Originating Summons No 1027 of 2009, [2010] SGHC 51

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Patient first consulted Dr. Devathasan.
Dr. Devathasan administered rTMS to the Patient.
Dr. Devathasan administered rTMS to the Patient.
Dr. Devathasan administered Therapeutic Ultrasound to the Patient.
Dr. Devathasan administered rTMS to the Patient.
Dr. Devathasan administered Therapeutic Ultrasound to the Patient.
Dr. Devathasan administered rTMS to the Patient.
Dr. Devathasan administered Therapeutic Ultrasound to the Patient.
Complaint lodged by the Patient’s husband and daughter-in-law.
Statutory Declaration affirmed by the husband.
Disciplinary Committee hearing began.
Disciplinary Committee hearing continued.
Disciplinary Committee hearing continued.
Disciplinary Committee hearing concluded. Disciplinary Committee issued grounds of decision.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Professional Misconduct
    • Outcome: The High Court found that the Disciplinary Committee erred in convicting Dr. Devathasan of professional misconduct, as the charge was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Inappropriate administration of medical treatment
      • Deviation from generally accepted medical practices
  2. Appropriateness of Medical Treatment
    • Outcome: The High Court determined that the Disciplinary Committee failed to adequately establish that the treatment was inappropriate, considering the lack of harm to the patient and the potential benefits derived.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Use of non-standard medical procedures
      • Deviation from generally accepted medical practices
      • Off-label use of treatments
  3. Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings
    • Outcome: The High Court found that the Disciplinary Committee applied the standard of proof erroneously, shifting the burden of proof onto Dr. Devathasan to prove the safety of the treatment.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Burden of proof
      • Admissibility of evidence

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against Disciplinary Committee's decision

9. Cause of Actions

  • Professional Misconduct

10. Practice Areas

  • Healthcare Regulation
  • Disciplinary Proceedings

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Low Cze Hong v Singapore Medical CouncilHigh CourtYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 612SingaporeEndorsed the English position that the High Court’s jurisdiction in such appeals is appellate in nature and that the court is fully entitled to substitute its own decision for that of the Disciplinary Committee. Also, the court will be slow to interfere with the findings of the disciplinary committee unless the grounds in s 46(8) of the Act are satisfied.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Therapeutic Ultrasound
  • Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
  • Professional Misconduct
  • Medical Registration Act
  • Disciplinary Committee
  • Generally Accepted Medical Practices
  • Off-Label Use
  • Standard of Proof
  • Medical Ethics
  • Patient Safety

15.2 Keywords

  • Medical Negligence
  • Professional Discipline
  • Alternative Medicine
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Singapore Medical Council

16. Subjects

  • Medical Law
  • Healthcare Regulation
  • Professional Ethics

17. Areas of Law

  • Medical Law
  • Professional Misconduct
  • Regulatory Law