Singapore Medical Council to file appeal to reduce S$50,000 fine against psychiatrist

SINGAPORE — After an outcry among doctors here, the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) said it will be appealing to reduce the S$50,000 fine imposed on psychiatrist Soo Shuenn Chiang.

This is the second time in less than a month that the SMC has reviewed its disciplinary tribunal’s sentence against a doctor.

The SMC said in a press statement on Thursday (March 14) that it decided on the appeal after reviewing the “appropriateness” of the tribunal’s sentence against Dr Soo. It has applied to the High Court for a time extension to lodge the appeal.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) said it welcomed the SMC’s decision.

Dr Soo of the National University Hospital (NUH) was fined S$50,000 for failing to verify a caller’s identity before he wrote a memo referring a patient to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) in 2015.

The caller, who posed as the patient’s husband but was really her brother, later used that memo to get a personal protection order against the patient, based on the tribunal’s judgement released last week.

On Thursday, an NUH spokesperson said the hospital filed a police report on Wednesday against the caller, just days after TODAY reported that no action appeared to have been taken. Lawyers had told TODAY that he could have committed an offence of cheating by impersonating another.

“As this is a police case, it will not be appropriate for us to comment further,” the NUH spokesperson added.

Last month, the MOH asked the SMC to review its ruling on Dr Lim Lian Arn, an orthopaedic surgeon who had been fined S$100,000 for failing to obtain informed consent from a patient before giving her an injection.

Dr Lim and Dr Soo’s cases sparked outrage among doctors here, with thousands petitioning against the harshness of the fines meted out.

On the ruling against Dr Lim, the SMC previously said that it had filed an application to the High Court to seek a time extension to file an appeal to reduce his fine, as the 30-day deadline provided under the Medical Registration Act for Dr Lim or the council to do so had passed.

In an update on Thursday, the SMC said its application has been granted. The Court of Three Judges will hear the appeal tentatively between April and June this year.

SMC president Tan Ser Kiat said the council understood the potential wider implications of its tribunal’s decisions on medical practice in Singapore, and the challenges and pressures doctors face daily.

“The SMC remains committed to reviewing and refining its complaints and disciplinary process periodically to maintain the public and the profession’s confidence,” Professor Tan added.

To this end, the SMC appointed a sentencing guidelines committee on Jan 1 this year in consultation with the MOH and the Ministry of Law, and said it looked forward to the committee’s recommendations, which will ensure sentences are consistent and fair.

A 12-member workgroup formed by the MOH will also carry out a comprehensive review and make recommendations to the ministry about doctors’ taking of informed consent as well as the SMC’s disciplinary process.

“The SMC will provide its fullest support to the workgroup’s independent review,” the council said.

ABOUT DR SOO’S CASE

On Jan 19, 2015, a female patient was admitted to the NUH for an overdose of a pain-relief drug.

She was noted to have a risk of self-harm, given that she has had depression before.

Two months after she was discharged, Dr Soo received a call from the woman’s brother posing as her husband, claiming that she was suicidal and needed an assessment at the IMH.

Dr Soo, who is the clinical director of NUH’s department of psychological medicine, did not check the caller’s identity by asking for his name, identity-card or contact numbers, and comparing these against the hospital’s records.

The memo he wrote, addressed to ambulance crew or the police officer-in-charge, contained her confidential medical information. He then instructed his clinic's staff member to give it to the caller.

In August 2015, the patient filed a complaint against Dr Soo.

Dr Soo’s lawyers argued that it was an “honest oversight” in the course of seeing 17 patients that day.