Notaries Public. Commissioners for Oaths
The limitation periods, or deadlines for commencing a Court action in Singapore, are prescribed by the
Limitation Act. The effect of these deadlines is that should one fail to commence action by the
limitation period, the legal action may be time-barred and the potential claimant would lose his right
to claim for compensation.
The issue of limitation periods is especially pertinent in medical negligence actions, as the effects of
medical malpractice (such as misdiagnosis, mistreatment or surgical misjudgment) often remain latent or
are only undiscovered until several years later. In such instances, will the limitation period preclude
a patient claimant from suing his/her medical practitioner in Court?
The limitation period for one to claim for personal injury suffered as a result of medical
negligence is 3 years from the date on which the injury was sustained or the negligent act was
committed.
However, if the claimant did not have the requisite knowledge to bring an action for damages in
respect of the relevant injury, the limitation period would only start to run 3 years from the
earliest date on which knowledge of such negligence was obtained. Knowledge here may refer to actual
or constructive knowledge that medical negligence may have been committed.
In Pai Lily v Yeo Peng Hock Henry [2001] SGHC 58 (“Pai Liliy”), the plaintiff patient consulted the
defendant doctor on 3 occasions in 1996 for a serious eye infection which subsequently left her
blinded in that eye. The plaintiff’s claim for negligence against the defendant doctor was that he
had failed to assert that her eye condition was at all serious and did not refer her to a hospital
for further treatment nor offered her the proper treatment. The defendant’s counsel had submitted
that the plaintiff’s claim was time barred as the Writ was only filed in January 2000, more than 3
years past the limitation period. In allowing the plaintiff’s claim, the Court had held that the
claim was not time barred as the patient plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable period of time to
seek expert assistance in order to determine if her injury was indeed caused by damage resulting
from negligence on the defendant’s part.
As such, although the limitation period for medical negligence injury cases is 3 years as the
starting point, this is not a blanket rule and would depend on the actual circumstances as to when
knowledge of such negligence was first obtained.
The Straits Times has recently reported on Khoo Teck Puat Hospital’s misdiagnosis of over 200
patient breast cancer conditions. [See:
[https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/breast-cancer-test-error-khoo-teck-puat-hospital-refunds-384146].
According to the authorities, at least 200 patients were wrongly classified as being positive for
HER2 – a gene which controls healthy cell growth- instead of HER2 negative, due to a lab error in
KTPH. These patients were wrongly classified as having a more aggressive form of breast cancer than
their actual condition, and as a result, may have received inappropriate medical treatment.
According to the Straits Times article, the hospital is currently reviewing the bills of the
affected patients and the costs incurred by these patients may be fully refunded. However, aside
from reimbursement of medical expenses, these affected patients may have a claim for medical
negligence against the hospital and/or the involved medical practitioners, if any.
Given that KTPH has admitted to their errors in diagnosis, liability would in all likelihood be
easily established in a potential medical negligence suit against the hospital. It must however be
noted that any potential claimant for this incident would still have to prove causation of their
injury because of KTPH’s alleged misdiagnosis and mistreatment. In addition, there may be a
limitation period issue given that patients were wrongly tested positive for HER2 as early as in
2012. Some of these patients seeking to make a medical negligence claim may face time-bar issues
given that more than 3 years has lapsed since the misdiagnosis by KTPH. Nonetheless, in view of the
Court’s approach in Pai Lily and other similar cases, it is likely that the limitation period would
not start to run until actual or constructive knowledge of such misdiagnosis was formed. This is so
considering that any patient should not reasonably be expected to know that such misdiagnosis had
occurred prior to KTPH’s own discovery.
The above article highlights the importance of taking legal action promptly, in view of issues with limitation period. If you suspect that you may have received the wrong medical treatment or diagnosis, it is critical that you seek legal advice without further delay so that you may be informed of your rights.
Sources: Straits Times article on 4 January 2021: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/breast-cancer-test-error-khoo-teck-puat-hospital-refunds-384146 Pai Lily v Yeo Peng Hock Henry [2001] 1 SLR(R) 517 SGHC 58