Biomedical Law and Ethics

• Author: Paul TAN LLB (Hons) (National University of Singapore), BCL (Oxon) (Dist); Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore).
• Published date: 01 December 2011
• Date: 01 December 2011
• Citation: (2011) 12 SAL Ann Rev 87

Professional discipline

6.1 The headline-grabbing disciplinary proceedings against Dr Susan Lim reached the Court of Appeal (Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council[2012] 1 SLR 701 (Lim Mey Lee (CA))) in the year under review on applications for orders to quash the constitution of a disciplinary committee set up after a first disciplinary committee had excused itself in the face of a challenge by Dr Lim that they had demonstrated apparent bias; as well as a prohibition order against further proceedings against her. The challenges were dismissed; and proceedings against Dr Lim are ongoing at the time of writing.

6.2 Dr Lim had been treating a female patient of the Royal Family of Brunei until the patient passed away in the middle of 2007. After her death, officials from the Ministry of Health, Brunei (MOHB) informed Professor Satku, Singapore's Director of Medical Services, that Dr Lim's invoices to Brunei for services rendered in 2007 were, in their view, too high. Prof Satku invited the MOHB to write officially to the Ministry of Health, Singapore (MOHS), which was done. This triggered an investigation by the MOHS, in which Prof Satku was involved. After investigations were completed, the MOHS issued a complaint to the chairman of the Singapore Medical Council's (SMC) complaints panel. The chairman of the Complaints Panel in turn progressed the matter to the complaints committee, which in turn made an order that a disciplinary committee be convened to formally hear the matter (1st DC). After the prosecution's case closed, Dr Lim informed the 1st DC that she would be making a submission that there was no case to answer. The 1st DC fixed a time-table for written submissions to be made, followed by oral submissions. Slightly more than a month before the oral submissions were due to be heard, one of the 1st DC's members passed away. A new member was appointed. Twenty days later, when parties turned up to make oral submissions, the 1st DC announced that it had made its decision. On the basis that the 1st DC had demonstrated itself to have prejudged the matter, Dr Lim requested that it excuse itself. The 1st DC did so, after ascertaining that the prosecution had no objection to Dr Lim's request. Shortly after, the SMC purported to revoke the appointment of the 1st DC that had excused itself and then to appoint a second disciplinary committee (2nd DC). This was achieved by purportedly seeking the consent of the members of the SMC through (bar one...