SINGAPORE, Feb 23 — Prominent surgical oncologist Professor London Lucien Ooi has been cleared of medical negligence in a suit brought against him and the National Cancer Centre of Singapore (NCCS) by Malaysian businessman Hii Chii Kok.
In throwing out Hii’s claims, High Court judge Chan Seng Oon found that the NCCS and Prof Ooi — who is facing a separate suit involving the same procedure at the heart of this case — had taken reasonable care to apprise Hii, 58, of risks in the recommended surgery and alternative treatment options.
Prof Ooi was also not negligent in caring for Hii after surgery in August 2010, wrote Justice Chan in a 123-page written judgment made public yesterday (February 22).
Mr Hii, the managing director of Kuala Lumpur’s public-listed SEGi University Group and executive chairman of private investment company HCK Capital Group, had contended that he was ill-advised by the defendants to undergo a major surgery here, even though scans and tests of his urine and blood purportedly showed he was not suffering from pancreatic cancer. Tests on the removed pancreas after the operation confirmed that he did not have cancer.
However, Justice Chan found that Prof Ooi did have a “lengthy consultation” with Hii where they discussed the risks involved in two surgical options.
In dismissing the claim that Prof Ooi had misinformed Hii that he definitely suffered from cancer, the judge pointed to how Hii had conceded in court that he was not explicitly told so.
“If you ask me whether they say it in my face that neuroendocrine tumour is cancer, no, but if you ask me whether I formed the impression from what they say ... what other conclusion would you expect me to draw,” Hii had said.
The judge noted that as a senior surgical consultant with close to two decades of specialised experience in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery, Prof Ooi could not have used the terms “cancer” and “tumour” interchangeably.
“This is nothing but a bald allegation ... by (Hii) in a futile attempt to fortify his claim,” said Justice Chan.
Hii had proceeded with the recommended surgery as he wanted “aggressive treatment”, but he has now “turned around” to sue the defendants for negligence, the judge added.
While Hii had alleged that further tests should have been performed before the procedure, the judge found, based on evidence given by medical experts during the trial, that these tests would have no merit in diagnosing his condition — ultimately diagnosed as a rare type of hyperplasia in the pancreas.
Hii had all the necessary information for him to assess the risks involved and give informed consent to the surgery, said the judge, noting in particular that Prof Ooi had quoted a conservative 5 per cent mortality risk when the actual figure is lower.
In throwing out Hii’s complaints that he was not properly cared for after surgery and was discharged before he had fully recovered, Justice Chan said it was reasonable for Prof Ooi to discharge Hii on August 27, 2010, as Hii was able to communicate that he was well and had commenced eating by then. He also found there was no basis for suspecting that Hii’s condition needed further investigations.
The NCCS, on the other hand, did not owe Hii duty of care for post-surgery as the procedure was undertaken at the Singapore General Hospital, an entirely different legal entity from the NCCS, said the judge. ― TODAY
