Ang Peng Tiam v Singapore Medical Council and another matter

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 27 June 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGHC 143
• Citation: [2017] SGHC 143
• Published date: 01 July 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Edwin Tong, S.C., Mak Wei Munn, Tan Ruyan Kristy and Ong Hui Fen Rachel (Allen & Gledhill LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Ho Pei Shien Melanie, Lim Xian Yong Alvin, Lim Wan Yu Cheronne, Chang Man Phing Jenny, and Lim Ying Min (Wongpartnership LLP)
• Date: 27 June 2017
• Hearing Date: 13 February 2017
• Docket Number: Originating Summonses Nos 8 and 9 of 2016
• Subject Matter: Professional conduct,Professions,Medical profession and practice

Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction

Dr Ang Peng Tiam is a medical oncologist in private practice. He was convicted by a Disciplinary Tribunal (“DT”) appointed by the Singapore Medical Council (“SMC”) of two charges of professional misconduct under s 53(1)(d) of the Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed). The charges were first, that Dr Ang had made a false representation to his patient, one MT, who had been diagnosed with a variety of cancer, on the chances of her disease responding to his prescribed treatment of chemotherapy and targeted therapy; and second, that at the same time, he failed to offer her an alternative option of surgery. The DT imposed on Dr Ang an aggregate fine of $25,000 for both charges.

By Originating Summons No 8 of 2016, Dr Ang appeals against his conviction on both charges. By Originating Summons No 9 of 2016, the SMC appeals against the sentence meted out by the DT, on the basis that it is manifestly inadequate and ought to be substituted by an order suspending him from practice for a term of at least six months for each of the two charges.

Background

The factual circumstances surrounding the commission of the alleged misconduct are not in dispute.

MT, who was 55 years old, first consulted Dr Ang at his clinic at the Parkway Cancer Centre (“PCC”) at Mount Elizabeth Hospital on 30 March 2010, following investigations at Tan Tock Seng Hospital. These investigations indicated that MT might be suffering from lung cancer. Dr Ang had MT undergo blood tests, as well as a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (“MRI”) scan of the brain and a Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography (“PET-CT”) scan. He did not, however, order that MT undergo an epidermal growth factor receptor (“EGFR”) analysis to determine her EGFR mutation status. As will shortly become evident, the EGFR mutation test was material to the issues before us.

On the following day, 31 March 2010, MT attended a consultation with Dr Ang again, this time to review the test results. Dr Ang explained to MT and her accompanying family members that the PET-CT scan showed “a large FDG avid mass in the upper lobe of [her] right lung with central areas of photopenic lucencies (necrosis)” that measured “up to 8 x 5.8 cm and demonstrate[d] SUVmax 12.9”, as well as “[a] few small satellite nodules”. FDG, or fluorodeoxyglucose, is a radioactive glucose that serves as a tracer in PET-CT imaging. The presence of an FDG avid mass in a PET-CT scan indicates the presence of sugar-hungry, fast-growing cells, which is suggestive of cancer because these grow faster than normal cells. The maximum standardised uptake value (“SUVmax”) is a semi-quantitative measure of FDG uptake and a value higher than five indicates the presence of an active and aggressive tumour. Central necrosis or, in simple terms, the presence of dead cells in the central area of a mass of cells, also indicates a fast-growing tumour because cells in the centre of a tumour are furthest from the blood supply and so tend to starve and die as the tumour grows. In plain language, the PET-CT scan suggested that MT had a large, fast-growing and aggressive tumour, as well as a few smaller growths (the “satellite nodules”), in her right lung. Dr Ang also explained to MT and her family that the MRI did not show any metastatic disease in her brain, and that MT would need to undergo a biopsy in order to confirm whether or not the mass was cancerous. This was done later that day.

MT and her family saw Dr Ang for the third time on 1 April 2010. At this consultation, Dr Ang informed them that the biopsy confirmed that MT was suffering from cancer, with the mass having been diagnosed as adenocarcinoma. He recommended that MT undergo chemotherapy using gemcitabine and cisplatin, together with targeted therapy using an alternate day dosage of gefitinib at 250mg per dose. Gefitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (“TKI”) and goes by the brand name Iressa. MT’s husband, who was present at the consultation, recorded part of Dr Ang’s explanation to MT and her family, which was conveyed in Mandarin and has been translated as follows:

Thirdly, we like that she does not smoke. Never had she smoked before…this is what we term as never smoker. Fourthly, we like this cell called ‘Adenocarcinoma’. These four you have. As such, we will start your treatment today. We…calculate…difficult to say but I feel that there is at least a 70% chance that the tumour will shrink. We should let it shrink before we do other…70% is a very high percentage. If you want to go to the casino, no one will let you in right? You have 70% chance, there is a high chance that it will lose to you. So I suggest that I will start your treatment today. We will use this medicine. I think that your hair should not fall that much.

The contents of the recording, as translated, are not disputed.

The foregoing facts gave rise to the first charge against Dr Ang. In the Agreed Statement of Facts put before the DT, Dr Ang and the SMC agreed that following his explanation to MT and her family on 1 April 2010 (a part of which has been set out above), Dr Ang had informed MT that “there was at least a ‘70% chance’ that [her] disease would respond to treatment and achieve control” with his prescribed therapy of “chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy”, and that such assessment was premised on MT (a) being Chinese; (b) being female; (c) being a “never-smoker”; and (d) having a tumour diagnosed as adenocarcinoma (“the four phenotypes”).

Dr Ang listed the four phenotypes on a memo for MT and her family. On the memo below the four phenotypes, Dr Ang also wrote “70%” and drew a circle around it. Below that, he drew another two circles, one bigger than the other, and an arrow pointing from the bigger of the two circles to the smaller one. By that, Dr Ang intended to indicate a large tumour that was expected to shrink.

MT underwent the treatment prescribed by Dr Ang. Unfortunately, her disease did not respond well to it. It progressed and she passed away a little more than six months later in October 2010.

On 15 December 2010, MT’s two daughters jointly lodged a complaint (“the Complaint”) to the SMC in respect of Dr Ang’s treatment of MT. About half a year later, on 27 June 2011, the SMC’s Complaints Committee (“CC”) wrote to Dr Ang notifying him of the Complaint and requesting his written explanation. Dr Ang provided his explanation on 19 July 2011 (“the Explanation”); but it was not till 2 May 2012, almost another year later, that he received a letter from the CC notifying him of its decision to refer the matter to a formal inquiry. It took the SMC a further one and a half years to constitute a DT in late 2013. Further delays ensued, due to events such as the resignation of some members of the original DT. A second DT was eventually constituted on 3 April 2015. A Notice of Inquiry (“NOI”) specifying the charges of professional misconduct was served on Dr Ang on 22 April 2015. By then, nearly four and a half years had passed since the Complaint was lodged. The inquiry before the DT eventually took place in two tranches between November 2015 and February 2016. The DT delivered its verdict on conviction and sentence on 12 July 2016. This was more than five and a half years after the Complaint was lodged.

The DT’s decision

The SMC brought four charges against Dr Ang. The DT convicted Dr Ang on two of the charges, but acquitted him on the remaining two. No appeal has been filed against the DT’s decision to acquit Dr Ang of the two charges.

The two charges on which Dr Ang was convicted are reproduced below:

The 1st Charge

That you, DR ANG PENG TIAM, a registered medical practitioner under the Medical Registration Act (Cap. 174), are charged that whilst practising at Parkway Cancer Centre (“PCC”), you did on 1 April 2010 make a false representation to your patient, one [MT] (“the Patient”), who was suffering from lung cancer, that there was a “70% chance” of the disease responding to treatment and achieving control with chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy.

Particulars

(a) On 1 April 2010, the Patient attended a consultation with you at PCC (“the Consultation”). (b) In the course of the Consultation, you informed the Patient that there was a “70% chance” of the disease responding to treatment and achieving control with chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy (“the Statement”). (c) You informed the Patient that the Statement was premised on the following 4 factors:- (i) That the Patient was of the Chinese race; (ii) That the Patient was female; (iii) That the Patient was a “never-smoker”; and (iv) That the Patient had adenocarcinoma. (d) The Statement was false as a 70% disease control rate is only achievable in patients who have epidermal growth factor receptor (“EGFR”) mutation. (e) You failed to carry out any EGFR analysis to ascertain the Patient’s EGFR mutation status.

and that in relation to the facts alleged, you have been guilty of professional misconduct under section 53(1)(d) of the Medical Registration Act (Cap. 174) (2004 Ed.)

The 2nd Charge

That you, DR ANG PENG TIAM, a registered medical practitioner under the Medical Registration Act (Cap. 174), are charged that whilst practising at Parkway Cancer Centre (“PCC”), on or about 1 April 2010, you failed to offer your patient, one [MT] (“the Patient”), who was suffering from cT3 N0 M0 (stage IIB) lung cancer, the treatment option of surgery.

Particulars

(a) On 1 April 2010, the Patient attended a consultation with you a PCC (“the Consultation”). (b) You failed to inform the Patient of an alternative treatment option of surgery. (c) Surgery is a viable treatment option that ought to have been presented to the Patient.

and that in relation to the facts alleged, you have been guilty of professional...