Yip Man Hing Kevin v Gleneagles Hospital

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 24 January 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 15
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 877 of 2013 (Summons No 5324 of 2013)
• Published date: 28 January 2014
• Year: 2014
• Hearing Date: 13 January 2014,22 October 2013,19 September 2013,20 September 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Edwin Tong, Kenneth Lim and Christine Tee (Allen & Gledhill LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Lok Vi Ming SC, Audrey Chiang and Calvin Lim (Rodyk & Davidson LLP),Khoo Boo Jin
• Subject Matter: Administrative law,Judicial review,Ambit
• Citation: [2014] SGHC 15

Choo Han Teck J:

This Originating Summons was an application for leave under O 53 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed). The applicant was Dr Kevin Yip Man Hing (“Dr Yip”). He is an orthopaedic surgeon who has been in private practice for about 15 years at Gleneagles Medical Centre. Dr Yip was accorded accreditation and privileges to practice at Gleneagles Medical Centre by Gleneagles Hospital (“GEH”), the respondent in this case. GEH is a private hospital, licensed under the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act (Cap 248, 1999 Rev Ed) (“PHMC”).

Two of Dr Yip’s patients were important to the case. The first was Shanmugan Baskaran (“Shanmugan”), who was admitted, after having been hit by an excavator, on 13 March 2012. He was primarily treated by the on-call general surgeon. Dr Yip only treated him in relation to his fractured collarbone. Shanmugan died on 18 March 2012, from septicaemia, as a result of thoraco-adominal injuries. The second was Murugesan Dharmaraj (“Murugesan”), who was admitted, after having fallen from a one-storey height, on 15 June 2012. Dr Yip assessed his condition and referred him to an intensivist. Murugesan’s condition stabilised on 19 June 2012, and he was then transferred to the National University Hospital. In between the admission of the two patients, on 9 April 2012, GEH issued a letter to all doctors practising at GEH, stating that, “[t]he committee recommended referring your patient to the restructured hospitals for initial assessment and acute management after you have triaged your patient via phone that massive transfusions are required.” GEH classified the contents of the letter as a directive, whereas Dr Yip questioned the mandatory nature of the contents, arguing they constituted a mere recommendation. While the contents of this letter have been relied on by both parties in their submissions on whether an arguable case has been made out, I found there was no need to make a determination on this matter. I have stated the contents of the letter only to shed light on the events that precipitated this matter before me.

On 18 December 2012, Dr Yip was informed that his professional performance and conduct of two incidents were being reviewed by the Professional Performance Review Committee (“PPRC”). The two incidents cited concerned the cases of Shanmugan and Murugesan, although neither patient’s name was cited. Ostensibly, the incidents involved Dr Yip’s treatment of the patients regarding the contents of the letter issued by GEH on 9 April 2012. The PPRC requested a written report from Dr Yip, in which he was to answer questions relating to the two incidents. Such questions revolved around the facts and circumstances of Dr Yip’s contact with each patient, for instance, how he came into contact with the patient and why Dr Yip chose a certain course in dealing with the patient. Dr Yip submitted his report on 6 January 2013.

On 9 January 2013, Dr Yip appealed to the chairman of the Medical Advisory Board, the board which establishes the PPRC, to replace Dr James Lee (“Dr Lee”), who was appointed as one of the 9 members of the PPRC. Dr Yip based his appeal on the grounds that Dr Lee had previously made inappropriate comments to two of Dr Yip’s patients about Dr Yip’s management of these patients. On 14 January 2013, the chairman disallowed Dr Yip’s appeal for Dr Lee to be replaced. No reasons were given.

On 2 March 2013, the PPRC invited Dr Yip for an oral interview to respond to questions relating to the two incidents. The interview was scheduled for 14 March 2013 at 5.30pm. On 12 March 2013, the PPRC provided Dr Yip with written statements of 3 witnesses called to give evidence before the PPRC. On 14 March 2013, Dr Yip attended the interview, at which only six out of the nine members of the PPRC were present. At the interview, Dr Yip formed the view that the PPRC members were not familiar with the material facts and circumstances of the two incidents. As such, he submitted a further report to the PPRC on 30 April 2013. However, by then, the PPRC had already submitted its report to the chairman of the Medical Advisory Board on 27 March 2013. The Medical Advisory Board reviewed the PPRC’s findings and conclusions on 22 April 2013, and also later reviewed Dr Yip’s letter dated 30 April 2013. The Medical Advisory Board, in turn, submitted its recommendations to the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of GEH. Dr Yip was not given a copy of either the formal report or the recommendations.

On 19 August 2013, the CEO of GEH wrote to Dr Yip stating that: GEH concurred with the Medical Advisory Board’s conclusion that there was a “serious lapse” on Dr Yip’s...