Man Mohan Singh v Dilveer Singh Gill: Claim for Fertility Treatment After Fatal Accident

In Man Mohan Singh s/o Jothirambal Singh and Another v Dilveer Singh Gill s/o Shokdarchan Singh and Another, the High Court of Singapore heard a case involving a claim for damages arising from a fatal car accident. The plaintiffs, Man Mohan Singh and Jasbir Kaur, sought damages for the loss of their two sons, Gurjiv and Pardip Singh, who died in a car accident caused by the defendant, Dilveer Singh Gill. The claim included bereavement, funeral expenses, loss of dependency, post-traumatic shock, and the cost of fertility treatments. The court allowed the claim for bereavement, funeral expenses, loss of dependency, and the cost of fertility treatments, but disallowed the claim for post-traumatic shock.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the Plaintiffs

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court allows parents to claim for fertility treatment costs after losing their only children in a car accident, establishing a novel head of claim under negligence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Man Mohan Singh s/o Jothirambal SinghPlaintiffIndividualPartial JudgmentPartial
Jasbir KaurPlaintiffIndividualPartial JudgmentPartial
Dilveer Singh Gill s/o Shokdarchan SinghDefendantIndividualLostLost
Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte LtdCo-DefendantCorporationLostLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Yap Yew Choh Kenneth ARJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Renuka ChettiarKaruppan Chettiar & Partners
Ramasamy s/o Karuppan ChettiarACIES Law Corporation
Christopher FernandezACIES Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiffs' two sons died in a car accident caused by the defendant.
  2. The defendant absconded after the accident.
  3. The plaintiffs are the lawful parents of the deceased.
  4. The plaintiffs underwent fertility treatments after the death of their sons.
  5. The mother underwent two IVF procedures, one using her own eggs and one using donor eggs.
  6. The second IVF procedure was initially successful, but the foetus was lost after 8 weeks.
  7. The plaintiffs sought to recover the costs of the IUI and IVF treatments.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Man Mohan Singh s/o Jothirambal Singh and Another v Dilveer Singh Gill s/o Shokdarchan Singh and Another, Suit 137/2004, NA 63/2006, [2007] SGHC 73

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Road accident resulting in the death of Gurjiv and Pardip Singh
Plaintiffs began grief therapy at Changi General Hospital
First plaintiff returned to work, taking morning shifts
Plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted natural procreation
Mother underwent first in vitro fertilisation procedure
Amended statement of claim filed, including claim for fertility treatments
IVF treatments finalized
First hearing
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Duty of Care
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2006] SGHC 222
      • [1932] AC 562
      • [1990] 2 AC 605
  2. Damages for Fertility Treatment
    • Outcome: The court allowed the claim for the cost of fertility treatments.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Damages for Nervous Shock
    • Outcome: The court disallowed the claim for nervous shock and depression.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1993] 3 SLR 317
      • [1983] AC 410
      • [1991] 4 All ER 907
  4. Loss of Dependency
    • Outcome: The court granted damages for loss of dependency.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1990] SLR 331
      • [1921] 2 KB 461
      • [1913] AC 1

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Bereavement
  3. Funeral Expenses
  4. Loss of dependency
  5. Post-traumatic shock
  6. Cost of fertility treatments

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury
  • Fatal Accidents
  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Insurance
  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ng Lim Lian v Port of Singapore AuthorityHigh CourtYes[1997] SGHC 62SingaporeCited regarding the award of funeral expenses without receipts.
Ng Siew Choo v Tan Kian ChoonHigh CourtYes[1990] SLR 331SingaporeCited for the principle that determination of lost income to dependents is not to be premised on mere speculation of pecuniary benefit.
Barnett v CohenN/AYes[1921] 2 KB 461England and WalesCited for the principle that determination of lost income to dependents is not to be premised on mere speculation of pecuniary benefit.
Taff Vale Railway Co v JenkinsN/AYes[1913] AC 1England and WalesCited for the principle that all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues.
Hassan bin Mohamad & Anor v Teoh Kim SengN/AYes[1987] 1 MLJ 328N/ACited to show that the plaintiffs’ claim for prospective loss was denied because they had failed to prove that the small sums earned by their deceased 12 year old child as a market assistant could be reducible to a money value.
Ho Yeow Kim v Lai Hai Kuen & AnorCourt of AppealYes[1999] 2 SLR 246SingaporeCited as a case with similar facts to the present case, regarding the assessment of damages for the death of a student.
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Meng EricHigh CourtYes[2006] SGHC 222SingaporeCited for the two-stage test for establishing a duty of care in negligence.
RSP Architects Planners & Engineers (Raglan Squire & Partners FE) v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1075N/AYes[1999] 2 SLR 449SingaporeCited for the approach to determine whether there is sufficient degree of proximity in the relationship between the party who has sustained the loss and the party who is said to have caused the loss which would give rise to a duty of care.
Donoghue v StevensonN/AYes[1932] AC 562United KingdomCited for the 'neighbour principle' in determining duty of care.
Caparo Industries plc v DickmanN/AYes[1990] 2 AC 605United KingdomCited for the concepts of proximity and fairness in determining duty of care.
Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Ltd. And AnorN/AYes[1931] 3 All E.R. 1159England and WalesCited for the 'egg-shell' skull plaintiff rule.
Dulieu v White & SonsN/AYes[1901] 2 K.B.England and WalesCited for the 'egg-shell' skull plaintiff rule.
Pang Koi Fa v Lim Djoe PhingN/AYes[1993] 3 SLR 317SingaporeCited for the principles relating to recovery of damages for nervous shock.
McLoughlin v O’BrianN/AYes[1983] AC 410United KingdomCited for the principles relating to recovery of damages for nervous shock.
Alcock & Ors v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire PoliceN/AYes[1991] 4 All ER 907England and WalesCited for the principles relating to recovery of damages for nervous shock.
Hevican v RuaneN/AYes[1991] 2 All ER 65England and WalesCited regarding claim for nervous shock even though the plaintiff did not observe the fatal accident.
Ng Swee Eng v Ang Oh ChuanN/AYes[2004] 4 SLR 425SingaporeCited on the relevant multipliers.
Lee Kwan Kok v Non Chan TongHigh CourtYes[2004] SGHC 211SingaporeCited on the relevant multipliers.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Fertility treatment
  • In vitro fertilisation
  • Intra-uterine insemination
  • Duty of care
  • Legal proximity
  • Nervous shock
  • Loss of dependency
  • Egg-shell skull rule

15.2 Keywords

  • negligence
  • fertility treatment
  • duty of care
  • fatal accident
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • damages
  • loss of dependency
  • nervous shock

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Damages95
Negligence90
Automobile Accidents80
Personal Injury75
Loss of Dependency70
Fertility treatment60
Family Law30
Civil Procedure20
Contract Law10

16. Subjects

  • Tort
  • Negligence
  • Damages
  • Personal Injury
  • Family Law