Chia Yang Pong v Singapore Medical Council

JudgeChao Hick Tin JA
Judgment Date31 May 2004
Neutral Citation[2004] SGHC 111
Citation[2004] SGHC 111
Defendant CounselPhilip Fong and Chang Man Phing (Harry Elias Partnership)
Published date03 June 2004
Plaintiff CounselMyint Soe and Deepak Raja (Myint Soe and Selvaraj)
Date31 May 2004
Docket NumberOriginating Motion No 11 of 2004
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterAppeal against findings of Disciplinary Committee of Singapore Medical Council,Section 45(13) Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Rev Ed),Disciplinary proceedings,Courts and Jurisdiction,Whether Disciplinary Committee empowered to impose fine exceeding $10,000,Whether empowered to impose financial penalty on medical practitioner in addition to ordering his name be removed from the Register of Medical Practitioners,Appeals,Section 45(2)(d) Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Rev Ed),Administrative Law,Sections 45(1), 45(2) Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Rev Ed),Medical practitioner fined $65,000 on 80 counts of professional misconduct,Disciplinary Committee of Singapore Medical Council,Principles to be applied

31 May 2004

Tan Lee Meng J (delivering the judgment of the court):

1 The appellant, Dr Chia Yang Pong (“Dr Chia”), a medical doctor, appealed against the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Singapore Medical Council (“SMC”) to remove his name from the Register of Medical Practitioners and to fine him $65,000 for professional misconduct. We allowed the appeal in part by reducing the fine to $10,000 and now give the reasons for our decision.

Background

2 Dr Chia was the sole licensee of a chain of seven medical clinics, known as Grace Polyclinic. In November 2002, an inspection team from the Ministry of Health called at all the branches of Grace Polyclinic and inspected the clinical cards of their patients. The investigations revealed that benzodiazepines had been improperly prescribed for quite a number of patients. Dr Chia was summoned to appear before a disciplinary committee of the SMC (“the Disciplinary Committee”) to answer charges relating to his failure to act with due care in the management of 80 patients who had been prescribed benzodiazepines without a proper record of their symptoms and condition. Such proper records would have enabled him or his colleagues at Grace Polyclinic to properly assess the medical condition of the patients over the periods of treatment.

3 At a hearing of the Disciplinary Committee on 26 February 2004, Dr Chia faced 80 charges of professional misconduct. He pleaded guilty and made submissions in mitigation. The Disciplinary Committee then convicted him of all the charges under s 45(1)(d) of the Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Rev Ed) and made the following orders:

Order 1 - That his name be removed from the Register of Medical Practitioners with effect from 29 March 2004;

Order 2 - That he be fined $1,000 per charge on 65 of the 80 charges against him;

Order 3 - That he be censured; and

Order 4 - That he pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee, including the costs of the solicitors for the SMC and the Legal Assessor.

4 Dr Chia, who was dissatisfied with the first two orders, relied on s 45(12) of the Medical Registration Act to lodge his appeal to the High Court. Section 45(12) of the said Act requires such an appeal to heard by a Court of Three Judges.

The appeal

5 Dr Chia contended that the Disciplinary Committee erred on three counts. Firstly, he claimed that the sentence imposed on him was manifestly excessive and that his name should not have been removed from the Register of Medical Practitioners. Secondly, he asserted that if his name was to be removed from the Register of Medical Practitioners, he should not have been fined as well. Thirdly, he submitted that the fine of $65,000 is above the limit permitted by s 45(2)(d) of the Medical Registration Act, which provides that the penalty imposed shall not exceed $10,000.

Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

6 In arguing that the sentence imposed on him by the SMC’s Disciplinary Committee was manifestly excessive, Dr Chia asserted that account should have been taken of the following three mitigating factors:

(a) A reasonable degree of care was taken in the management of the patients’ health and benzodiazephines were not freely prescribed;

(b) There was no allegation that any of his patients had suffered perceptible harm or injury; and

(c) Five of the seven Grace Polyclinic branches had suffered losses between 2000 and 2002.

7 At the outset, it ought to be pointed out that s 45(13) of the Medical Registration Act provides that in any appeal by a medical practitioner, the High Court shall accept as final and conclusive the finding of a disciplinary committee on any issue of medical ethics or standards of professional conduct unless it is unsafe, unreasonable or contrary to evidence. It is worth noting that in Libman Julius v General Medical Council [1972] AC 217 at 221, Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone LC explained that it is difficult to displace a finding or order of a disciplinary committee in such cases:

… unless it can be shown that something was clearly wrong either (i) in the conduct of the trial or (ii) in the legal principles applied or (iii) unless it can be shown that the findings of the committee were sufficiently...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 26 Mayo 2011
  • Low Cze Hong v Singapore Medical Council
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 26 Mayo 2008
    ...the Act mirrors the approach under the common law. This court in Tan Sek Ho ([24] supra) and Chia Yang Pong v Singapore Medical Council [2004] 3 SLR 151 has accepted the approach adopted by Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone LC in Julius Libman v General Medical Council [1972] AC 217. Lord Hail......
  • Chia Foong Lin v Singapore Medical Council
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 27 Junio 2017
    ...at [66] and [68]. Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical Council [2015] 1 SLR 436 (distd) Chia Yang Pong v Singapore Medical Council [2004] 3 SLR(R) 151; [2004] 3 SLR 151 (refd) Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Medical Council [2004] 1 WLR 2432, QBD (Eng) ......
  • Fong Chee Keong v Professional Engineers Board, Singapore
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 5 Abril 2016
    ...that the evidence has been misread. This approach had also been accepted by the Court in Chia Yang Pong v Singapore Medical Council [2004] 3 SLR(R) 151 at [7]. Furthermore, in considering an appeal, a court would be slow to interfere with the findings of a disciplinary committee as the latt......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Administrative and Constitutional Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2004, December 2004
    • 1 Diciembre 2004
    ...Registration Act (Cap 174, 1998 Rev Ed) and the Accountants Act (Cap 2, 2001 Rev Ed) in Chia Yang Pong v Singapore Medical Council[2004] 3 SLR 151 and Ling Uk Choon v Public Accountants Board[2004] 3 SLR 517 respectively. Other issues examined included the limits to judicial review as not e......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT