Low Chai Ling v Singapore Medical Council: Professional Misconduct in Aesthetic Medicine
Dr. Low Chai Ling appealed against the Singapore Medical Council's (SMC) decision to convict her of professional misconduct for offering and performing aesthetic procedures without clinical justification. The High Court allowed the appeal, citing a lack of clear guidelines and established standards for aesthetic medicine during the period in question. The court found the charges vague and the SMC's application of ethical codes inappropriate given the uncertainty surrounding aesthetic practices at the time.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against conviction for professional misconduct for offering non-evidence-based aesthetic procedures. Appeal allowed due to lack of clear guidelines.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Medical Council | Respondent | Statutory Board | Decision Set Aside | Lost | |
| Low Chai Ling | Applicant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Dr. Low Chai Ling, a general practitioner, was charged with professional misconduct.
- The charges related to offering and performing aesthetic procedures that were not clinically justifiable.
- The procedures included mesotherapy, mesoglow, stem cell extract facial therapy, sonophoresis, and carboxytherapy.
- The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) found Dr. Low guilty of five out of seven charges.
- The Disciplinary Committee (DC) imposed a fine, censure, and undertaking on Dr. Low.
- The High Court allowed Dr. Low's appeal against the DC's decision.
- At the time of the alleged misconduct, there were no clear guidelines for aesthetic medicine in Singapore.
5. Formal Citations
- Low Chai Ling v Singapore Medical Council, Originating Summons No 18 of 2012, [2012] SGHC 191
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant obtained MBBS from Guy’s & St Thomas’ Hospital in London | |
| Applicant started Eastlife Medical Centre | |
| Applicant completed Diploma of Dermatology from the University of Wales | |
| Applicant started The Sloane Clinic | |
| Applicant started a second branch of The Sloane Clinic | |
| Ministry of Health sent a letter to the applicant regarding advertisements on the clinic’s website | |
| Applicant replied to the Ministry of Health | |
| Ministry of Health asked for detailed descriptions of the procedures | |
| Applicant replied to the Ministry of Health attaching descriptions of the treatment protocols | |
| Article titled “SKIN FLICK” was published in The Straits Times | |
| Dr Harold Tan issued an official complaint to the Singapore Medical Council against the applicant | |
| Complaints Committee of the Singapore Medical Council sent the applicant a letter requesting a written explanation | |
| Applicant responded with literature on the procedures | |
| First edition of the Guidelines on Aesthetic Practices for Doctors was published | |
| Guidelines on Aesthetic Practices for Doctors issued by the SMC | |
| Applicant sent a Notice of Inquiry from the SMC’s solicitors | |
| Disciplinary Committee delivered its decision | |
| Applicant affirmed an affidavit | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| High Court delivered its decision |
7. Legal Issues
- Professional Misconduct
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant's conduct did not constitute professional misconduct due to the lack of clear guidelines at the time.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines
- Offering non-evidence-based treatments
- Lack of clinical justification
- Due Process
- Outcome: The court found that the charges against the applicant were vague and lacked sufficient particulars, violating due process.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Inadequate particularization of charges
- Lack of consistency between charges and argued case
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Disciplinary Committee's decision
9. Cause of Actions
- Professional Misconduct
10. Practice Areas
- Healthcare Regulation
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Medical Negligence
11. Industries
- Healthcare
- Cosmetics
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gobinathan Devathasan v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 926 | Singapore | Cited for the test of when a particular therapy treatment would become generally accepted. |
| Lim Beh & Ors v Opium Farmer | Unknown | Yes | (1842) 3 Ky 10 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the offence imputed must be positively and precisely stated. |
| Low Cze Hong v Singapore Medical Council | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 612 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of professional misconduct. |
| Pillai v Messiter (No 2) | Unknown | Yes | [1989] 16 NSWLR 197 | Unknown | Cited for the definition of professional misconduct. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee Sing | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 466 | Singapore | Cited for differentiating between fraudulent conduct and conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor. |
| In re Weare, a Solicitor; In re The Solicitors Act, 1888 | Unknown | Yes | [1893] 2 QB 439 | Unknown | Cited for the standard of unbefitting conduct. |
| Wong Kok Chin v Singapore Society of Accountants | High Court | Yes | [1989] 2 SLR(R) 633 | Singapore | Cited for the test of whether reasonable people would say that an accountant should not have done something. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Khushvinder Singh Chopra | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 490 | Singapore | Cited for stating that conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor is not confined to misconduct in the solicitor’s professional capacity but also extends to misconduct in the solicitor’s personal capacity. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Aesthetic medicine
- Professional misconduct
- Evidence-based medicine
- Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines
- Disciplinary Committee
- Medical Registration Act
- Guidelines on Aesthetic Practices
- Meso-therapy
- Meso-glow
- Carboxytherapy
- Sonophoresis
- Stem cell extract facial therapy
15.2 Keywords
- Medical Council
- Aesthetic Medicine
- Professional Misconduct
- Singapore
- Ethics
- Cosmetic Procedures
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Aesthetic Medicine | 90 |
| Medical Ethics | 80 |
| Professional conduct | 75 |
| Medical Negligence | 60 |
| Medical Malpractice | 50 |
| Healthcare Law | 40 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Medical Ethics
- Professional Regulation
- Aesthetic Procedures