Costs awarded to doctor after failed appeal by woman who claimed he and another doctor took advantage of patients

• Ms Serene Tiong claimed that Dr Julian Ong and Dr Chan Herng Nieng took advantage of vulnerable female patients to have sex with them  
• Dr Ong sued her for defamation and a lower court ruled in her favour in April
• But the High Court overturned this decision in Oct 2 with the judge finding that the doctors did not take sexual advantage of Ms Tiong 
   

SINGAPORE — A woman, who was sued by a surgeon for alleging that he and a fellow doctor colluded to take advantage of patients sexually, had her application for leave to appeal a High Court decision dismissed.

Ms Serene Tiong, who was sued by Dr Julian Ong of HC Surgical Specialists (HCSS), will also have to pay the costs of the application amounting to S$3,000 to him, the firm said in a bourse filing on Thursday evening (Oct 15).

District Judge Lynette Yap had ruled in Ms Tiong’s favour in the libel suit in April but Dr Ong appealed against the decision.

Justice See Kee Oon on Oct 2 overturned the decision in High Court and found that Dr Ong and psychiatrist Chan Herng Nieng did not take advantage of Ms Tiong sexually. She had filed a complaint against them.

The judge found that both doctors, who are close friends, could have come together to target a female patient of Dr Ong’s, identified only as K.

Justice See said that Ms Tiong had failed to prove her defence of justification, as she did not prove that the two doctors colluded to take advantage of more than one "vulnerable woman patient".

In a defamation suit, a person making the alleged defamatory remarks must prove that what they said was true to justify their defence. 

Even though the judge found that the woman identified as K was indeed a target and a vulnerable patient, no other such patients were named.

He also rejected Ms Tiong’s claim to be one of the vulnerable patients, adding that any relationship of trust that Dr Chan and Ms Tiong shared was premised on the extramarital affair they had, not on a doctor-patient relationship. 

Granting Dr Ong his claim, Ms Tiong was ordered to pay S$40,000 in costs for the lawsuit, appeal and damages that she owed Dr Ong, which was assessed by a district court.

Dr Ong was also granted an injunction restraining her from publishing the defamatory content.

Despite their legal victory, Justice See cautioned that Dr Ong and Dr Chan had no moral victory to claim, chiding them for their “blatant treatment of women as sex objects”.

The Singapore Medical Council said in June that a committee it appointed found that conditions had to be imposed on both doctors' medical practitioner licences, for public safety and in the public's interest.

For 18 months from June 18 or until disciplinary proceedings against them conclude, Dr Ong cannot contact female patients other than for medical purposes. If he had to, a clinic employee had to do so on his behalf unless there are certain conditions.

He is also not allowed to send personal data of his patients to others unless required by medical practice or by law.

Dr Chan was given the same conditions, with an additional one: Contact with any female patients needs to be recorded in a separate log if he had to contact them for psychiatric care.

This also applies when he is taking a call from them or their family members relating to psychiatric care or treatment.

Dr Ong was also suspended from practising at Gleneagles, Mount Elizabeth, Mount Elizabeth Novena and Parkway East Hospitals, a filing on the Singapore Exchange stated in April.

However, he is still allowed to practise at centres run by HCSS in the heartlands.

The firm on Thursday said that it will provide more updates on this matter if necessary and in compliance with listing rules.