LITT
Try LITT free
Parvaty d/o Raju and another v National University Hospital (S) Pte Ltd and another [2026] SGHC 7
The court held that medical professionals are not negligent if their actions are supported by a responsible body of medical opinion, and that the duty to advise patients on treatment options is governed by the patient's perspective on materiality, excluding obviously inappropriat
JU and Another v See Tho Kai Yin [2005] SGHC 140
The court held that a doctor's duty of care to a patient does not commence until the first consultation, and that the standard of care is governed by the Bolam test. Furthermore, the court found that wrongful life claims are contrary to public policy.
F v Chan Tanny [2003] SGHC 192
In professional negligence, there is no liability without proof of fault. The fact that a baby is born damaged is not in itself evidence of negligence.
Supuletchimi d/o Rajoogopal v Tay Boon Keng and Others [2002] SGHC 31
A doctor is not negligent if they act in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion, provided that such opinion has a logical basis.
Vasuhi d/o Ramasamypillai v Tan Tock Seng Hospital Pte Ltd [2001] SGHC 30
A doctor is not negligent if they act in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion, provided that the opinion has a logical basis.
Dr Khoo James and Another v Gunapathy d/o Muniandy and another appeal
The Bolam test, as supplemented by Bolitho, requires that medical expert opinion must satisfy a threshold test of logic to be considered a responsible body of opinion, but the court should not adjudicate between competing respectable medical opinions.