Singapore Medical Council v Dr Soo Shuenn Chiang: Medical Professional Conduct & Patient Confidentiality
The Singapore High Court heard an appeal by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) against Dr. Soo Shuenn Chiang, a consultant psychiatrist, who was initially found guilty by a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) for professional misconduct. The charge stemmed from Dr. Soo's failure to verify the identity of a caller before issuing a memorandum containing confidential medical information about a patient. The DT had ordered Dr. Soo to pay a penalty of $50,000. The SMC sought a review of the DT’s decision, and later sought to set aside Dr. Soo's conviction and sentence. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside Dr. Soo's conviction and all orders made below, finding that Dr. Soo acted reasonably in the circumstances.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Dr Soo’s conviction as well as all the orders made below are set aside.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court overturned Dr. Soo's conviction for medical misconduct, finding he reasonably maintained patient confidentiality in a potential suicide risk situation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Medical Council | Appellant | Statutory Board | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Chia Voon Jiet, Koh Choon Min, Charlene Wong Su-Yi |
| Dr Soo Shuenn Chiang | Respondent | Individual | Conviction Set Aside | Won | Mak Wei Munn, Ong Hui Fen Rachel, Pek Wen Jie |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chia Voon Jiet | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Koh Choon Min | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Charlene Wong Su-Yi | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Mak Wei Munn | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Ong Hui Fen Rachel | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Pek Wen Jie | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
4. Facts
- Dr. Soo, a psychiatrist, received a call from someone claiming to be the husband of his patient.
- The caller stated that the patient was suicidal and needed urgent assessment.
- Dr. Soo issued a memorandum for the patient to be assessed at the Institute of Mental Health.
- Dr. Soo did not verify the caller's identity before issuing the memorandum.
- The memorandum was collected by the patient's brother, not the husband.
- The patient's brother used the memorandum in Family Court proceedings.
- The Singapore Medical Council charged Dr. Soo with professional misconduct.
5. Formal Citations
- Singapore Medical Council v Soo Shuenn Chiang, Originating Summons No 5 of 2019, [2019] SGHC 250
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Complainant admitted to National University Hospital after a Tramadol overdose. | |
| Dr. Soo reviewed the Complainant and diagnosed her with adjustment disorder. | |
| Complainant discharged from National University Hospital. | |
| Dr. Soo received a call regarding the Complainant's suicidal state. | |
| Dr. Soo issued a memorandum regarding the Complainant. | |
| Complainant discovered the memorandum in the Brother's possession. | |
| Complainant called National University Hospital to inquire about the memorandum. | |
| Dr. Soo called the Complainant back. | |
| Dr. Soo wrote a letter to the Complainant clarifying the memorandum. | |
| Complainant lodged a complaint against Dr. Soo with the Singapore Medical Council. | |
| The Investigation Unit of the Singapore Medical Council wrote to Dr. Soo enclosing the Complaint. | |
| Dr. Soo provided a written explanation. | |
| The Complaints Committee informed Dr. Soo that it had ordered a disciplinary tribunal. | |
| Notice of Inquiry served on Dr. Soo. | |
| The Disciplinary Tribunal heard the parties. | |
| The Disciplinary Tribunal issued its Grounds of Decision. | |
| The Singapore Medical Council served notice of the Disciplinary Tribunal’s order on Dr. Soo. | |
| The Grounds of Decision was published. | |
| The Singapore Medical Council filed Originating Summonses Nos 5 and 6 of 2019. | |
| The Brother published a post on Facebook. | |
| The court granted a consent order in terms of the Singapore Medical Council’s application in Originating Summons 6 of 2019. | |
| The Brother and the Husband made statutory declarations. | |
| The Singapore Medical Council amended Originating Summons 5 of 2019. | |
| The Complainant signed a statutory declaration. | |
| The High Court heard the parties on Originating Summons 5 of 2019 and Summons 3 of 2019. | |
| Dr. Fung filed and served a supplementary affidavit enclosing his supplemental expert report. | |
| Counsel for Dr. Soo wrote to the court stating that Dr. Soo accepted Dr. Fung’s conclusions. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Medical Confidentiality
- Outcome: The court held that Dr. Soo did not breach medical confidentiality in the circumstances.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to verify caller identity
- Disclosure of confidential information to unauthorized persons
- Professional Misconduct
- Outcome: The court held that Dr. Soo's conduct did not amount to professional misconduct.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Serious negligence
- Abuse of privileges of medical registration
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of Disciplinary Tribunal's Decision
- Setting aside of conviction and sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Professional Misconduct
10. Practice Areas
- Healthcare Regulation
- Professional Discipline
- Medical Negligence
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Medical Council v Dr Soo Shuenn Chiang | Singapore Medical Council Disciplinary Tribunal | Yes | [2018] SMCDT 11 | Singapore | Refers to the Disciplinary Tribunal's decision which is the subject of the appeal. |
| Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 492 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the standard of care required of a doctor depends on context-specific circumstances. |
| Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 834 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the standard of care expected of doctors in an emergency must be informed by the reality of the working conditions. |
| Singapore Medical Council v Lim Lian Arn | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 172 | Singapore | Cited as a similar case involving alleged medical misconduct where the court made remarks about the standard of care. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act (Cap 178A, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Medical confidentiality
- Professional misconduct
- Suicidal ideation
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Memorandum
- Verification of identity
- Ethical guidelines
- Standard of care
- Defensive medicine
- Psychiatric emergency
15.2 Keywords
- medical
- confidentiality
- misconduct
- psychiatrist
- Singapore
- ethics
- patient
- SMC
- tribunal
- appeal
16. Subjects
- Medical Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Duty of Care
- Patient Rights
17. Areas of Law
- Medical Law
- Professional Conduct
- Administrative Law
- Ethics
- Confidentiality