BBN v Low Eu Hong: Negligence Claim for Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) & Medical Examination Dispute

In BBN (by her next friend B) v Low Eu Hong (trading as EH Low Baby N’ Child Clinic), the Singapore High Court addressed a negligence claim against a paediatrician for failing to detect Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) in a premature baby. The plaintiff, BBN, alleged negligence in the defendant's management, care, and treatment. The defendant applied for a stay of proceedings until the plaintiff completed psychological, ENT, and language assessments. The court dismissed the defendant's application, finding the requested medical examinations unreasonable and insufficiently explained.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Defendant's application dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

A negligence claim against a paediatrician for failing to detect Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) in a premature baby. The court addresses the reasonableness of further medical examinations.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
BBN (by her next friend B)PlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Niru Pillai of Independent Practitioner
Low Eu Hong (trading as EH Low Baby N' Child Clinic)DefendantIndividualApplication DismissedWon
Edric Pan of Independent Practitioner
Rebecca Heng of Independent Practitioner

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Yeong Zee KinSenior Assistant RegistrarYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Niru PillaiIndependent Practitioner
Edric PanIndependent Practitioner
Rebecca HengIndependent Practitioner

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff, born prematurely with low birth weight, developed Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP).
  2. The plaintiff claimed the defendant paediatrician was negligent in failing to detect ROP.
  3. Parties consented to an assessment of damages without admission of liability.
  4. The defendant requested psychological, ENT, and language assessments of the plaintiff.
  5. The plaintiff sought to impose conditions on further medical examinations, including disclosure of medical reports.
  6. The defendant applied for a stay of proceedings until the medical examinations were completed.
  7. The court found that the defendant had not provided sufficient explanation for the necessity of the language assessment, ENT, and psychological examination.

5. Formal Citations

  1. BBN (by her next friend B) v Low Eu Hong (trading as EH Low Baby N’ Child Clinic), Suit No 234 of 2011, Summons No 782 of 2012, [2012] SGHCR 7

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Lawsuit filed
Parties consented to an order under Order 36, rule 2 for assessment of damages without admission of liability
Plaintiff examined by Dr Quah Boon Long
Plaintiff examined by Associate Professor Lourdes Mary Daniel
Solicitors exchanged letters regarding medical examinations
Defendant's solicitors filed an affidavit in support of application
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Reasonableness of Medical Examinations
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant had not provided sufficient explanation for the necessity of the language assessment, ENT, and psychological examination and therefore the request was unreasonable.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Scope of medical examinations
      • Necessity of medical examinations
      • Relevance of medical examinations to damages assessment
  2. Disclosure of Medical Reports
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a copy of the medical reports as they were prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation and protected by litigation privilege.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Litigation privilege
      • Medical confidentiality
      • Patient's right to medical information

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Medical Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Medical Law
  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Li Siu Lun v Looi Kok PohHigh CourtYes[2012] SGHCR 4SingaporeCited regarding the court's power to order medical examinations and whether a stay of proceedings is appropriate.
Edmeades v Thames Board Mills LtdUK Court of AppealYes[1969] 2 QB 67United KingdomCited as precedent that a stay of proceedings was the traditional prayer under English law.
Prescott v Bulldog Tools LtdIndependent CourtYes[1981] 3 All ER 869United KingdomCited for a classification of the range of possible medical examinations.
Lane v WillisIndependent CourtYes[1972] 1 WLR 326United KingdomCited regarding the principles upon which a court should act in obtaining a medical examination of one of the parties to an action.
Starr v National Coal BoardIndependent CourtYes[1977] 1 WLR 63United KingdomCited regarding the exercise of judicial discretion in ordering a stay of proceedings or medical examination.
Clarke v MartlewIndependent CourtYes[1973] 1 QB 58United KingdomCited to support the submission that it is reasonable for the plaintiff to require that copies of the medical reports arising from the further medical examinations be supplied to her as a condition for undergoing them.
Megarity v DJ Ryan & Sons LtdUK Court of AppealYes[1980] 1 WLR 1237United KingdomCited to argue that the line of cases starting from Clarke v Martlew is no longer good law insofar as they relate to the reciprocal disclosure of medical reports.
McGinley v BurkeIndependent CourtYes[1973] 1 WLR 990United KingdomCited regarding the plaintiff's need to offer reciprocity when requiring to see a copy of the defendant’s medical reports as a condition of a particular examination.
Causton v Mann Egerton LtdIndependent CourtYes[1974] 1 WLR 162United KingdomCited regarding the modernisation of the UK Rules of Court to compel the exchange of expert reports that parties intend to rely on at the trial.
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte LtdIndependent CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR 367SingaporeCited regarding situations where part of the document contains privileged material, and the remaining part is unprivileged.
Harmony Shipping Co SA v Saudi Europe Line LtdIndependent CourtYes[1979] 1 WLR 1380United KingdomCited regarding the rule that there is no property in witnesses applies to both factual and expert witnesses.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 36, rule 2
Order 40A

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Retinopathy of Prematurity
  • Medical Examination
  • Stay of Proceedings
  • Litigation Privilege
  • Medical Confidentiality
  • Reasonableness
  • Assessment of Damages
  • Medical Report
  • Expert Opinion
  • Medical Negligence

15.2 Keywords

  • medical negligence
  • retinopathy of prematurity
  • medical examination
  • stay of proceedings
  • litigation privilege
  • medical confidentiality
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP)80
Medical Negligence75
Medical Examination65
Personal Injury60
Medical Reports55
Measure of Damages50
Evidence40
Civil Procedure30

16. Subjects

  • Medical Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Negligence