Selvaraj v Yap Chee Mun: Striking Out Medical Negligence Claim for Being Time-Barred

In Selvaraj s/o Packirisamy v Yap Chee Mun and others, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore struck out the claimant's medical negligence claim against Dr. Yap Chee Mun, Dr. Hoi Wai Han, Dr. Sanaullah Khan, and Tan Tock Seng Hospital. The court, presided over by AR Gerome Goh Teng Jun, found the claim to be time-barred and plainly unsustainable. The claimant alleged negligence in the diagnosis and treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and a fall in 2015. The court dismissed the suit, citing the claimant's failure to bring the action within the statutory limitation period and the lack of factual basis for the claims.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Claimant's statement of claim struck out and suit dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Medical negligence claim struck out due to being time-barred and unsustainable. The claimant's claim lacked factual basis and was contradicted by expert reports.

1.7 Decision Date

14 January 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Selvaraj s/o Packirisamy	Claimant	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost
Yap Chee Mun	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Lydia Yeow of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Audrey Sim of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Hoi Wai Han	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Lydia Yeow of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Audrey Sim of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Sanaullah Khan	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Lydia Yeow of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Audrey Sim of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Tan Tock Seng Hospital	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Lydia Yeow of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Audrey Sim of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Gerome Goh Teng Jun	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lydia Yeow	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Audrey Sim	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP

4. Facts

Claimant was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in 2010 at Geylang Polyclinic.
Claimant consulted the first defendant in 2015 and was informed of his Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus diagnosis.
Claimant attended Tan Tock Seng Hospital in 2015 and was treated for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.
Claimant suffered a fall in 2015 and was admitted to Tan Tock Seng Hospital.
Claimant underwent emergency surgery in 2015 due to a subdural haematoma.
Claimant commenced the suit in 2023, alleging medical negligence.
An expert report submitted by the claimant contradicted his allegations of negligence.

5. Formal Citations

Selvaraj s/o Packirisamy v Yap Chee Mun and others, Originating Claim No 222 of 2023 (Summons No 3365 of 2023), [2024] SGHCR 1

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2010-09-02	Claimant informed of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus diagnosis at Geylang Polyclinic.
2015-06-12	Claimant consulted at Geylang Polyclinic, complaining of an upper back lump.
2015-06-16	Claimant consulted the first defendant at Geylang Polyclinic and was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.
2015-06-17	Claimant attended the Department of Emergency Medicine of the fourth defendant.
2015-10-12	Claimant attended the Department of Endocrinology of the fourth defendant.
2015-12-06	Claimant attended the Department of Emergency medicine of the fourth defendant with symptoms of headache and muscle pain.
2015-12-08	Claimant returned to the Department of Emergency Medicine of the fourth defendant with complaints of headaches and giddiness after sustaining a fall at home.
2015-12-11	CT angiogram of brain was performed.
2015-12-20	Claimant became drowsy and an urgent CT scan of his brain was performed.
2015-12-30	Claimant was discharged from the fourth defendant.
2016-01-12	Claimant admitted to the Department of Neurosurgery of the fourth defendant.
2016-01-13	Claimant discharged from the Department of Neurosurgery of the fourth defendant.
2016-03-01	Claimant sought medical reports from the defendants.
2016-05-01	Claimant applied for legal aid from the Legal Aid Bureau.
2016-10-01	Claimant made further requests to Geylang Polyclinic and the fourth defendant for medical reports.
2017-07-01	Claimant made further requests to Geylang Polyclinic and the fourth defendant for medical reports.
2017-11-01	Claimant complained to the Ministry of Health about the defendants.
2018-05-01	Claimant appealed to Legal Aid Bureau regarding the latter’s decision to refuse aid to him.
2023-04-13	Claimant commenced this Suit against the defendants.
2023-08-23	Claimant submitted a specialist medicolegal report from Dr Yeo Poh Teck.
2023-12-13	Hearing date.
2024-01-15	Judgment reserved.
2024-01-15	Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

Striking out claim for abuse of process
- Outcome: The court allowed the striking out application, finding the claim to be an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
Striking out claim in the interests of justice
- Outcome: The court allowed the striking out application, finding it to be in the interests of justice.
- Category: Procedural
Time-bar for medical negligence claim
- Outcome: The court found the claim to be time-barred, as more than three years had passed since the cause of action accrued and the claimant acquired the requisite knowledge to bring an action.
- Category: Substantive
Medical negligence
- Outcome: The court found the claimant's allegations of medical negligence to be unsustainable.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582
  - Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232

8. Remedies Sought

Damages for personal injuries

9. Cause of Actions

Medical Negligence

10. Practice Areas

Medical Negligence Litigation
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd v Encore Films Pte Ltd	General Division of the High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC 255	Singapore	Cited for the principle that O 9 r 16(1)(c) of the ROC 2021 replaces O 18 r 19(1)(b) and O 18 r 19(1)(c) of the ROC 2014 to build in the Ideals set out in O 3 r 1 of the ROC 2021, ie, to do what the interests of justice requires.
Leong Quee Ching Karen v Lim Soon Huat and others	General Division of the High Court	Yes	[2022] SGHC 309	Singapore	Cited for general guidance on the law on striking out, including the high bar for succeeding in a striking out application and the burden of proof on the applicant.
Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co Ltd and another and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 814	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the power to strike out is very sparingly exercised and only applied in very exceptional cases.
Koh Kim Teck v Credit Suisse AG, Singapore Branch	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 52	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the applicant in a striking out application bears the burden of proving that the claim is obviously unsustainable.
Bank of China Ltd, Singapore Branch v BP Singapore Pte Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 5 SLR 738	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the applicant in a striking out application bears the burden of proving that the claim is obviously unsustainable.
Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 1018	Singapore	Cited for the tests for establishing each ground of O 9 r 16(1) of the ROC 2021.
Kim Hok Yung and others v Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA (trading as Rabobank) (Lee Mon Sun, third party)	High Court	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR(R) 455	Singapore	Cited for the principle that if a claimant knowingly pursues a case that is doomed to fail, the claimant would be wasting the court’s time and this would amount to an abuse of process.
Lian Kok Hong v Ow Wah Foong and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 165	Singapore	Cited for elaboration on what constitutes knowledge under s 24A(4) of the Limitation Act.
People’s Parkway Development v Akitek Tenggara	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR(R) 469	Singapore	Cited for the pre-existing position under the ROC 2014 that the court would strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim if the limitation period expired on the basis that the claim was frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of process.
Yan Jun v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 793	Singapore	Cited for the pre-existing position under the ROC 2014 that the court would strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim if the limitation period expired on the basis that the claim was frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of process.
Liew Soon Fook Michael and Anor v Yi Kai Development Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 88	Singapore	Cited for the pre-existing position under the ROC 2014 that the court would strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim if the limitation period expired on the basis that the claim was frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of process.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee	High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division	Yes	[1957] 1 WLR 582	England and Wales	Cited for the Bolam-Bolitho Test, which applies to determine whether a doctor has breached his duty of care to a patient.
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority	House of Lords	Yes	[1998] AC 232	England and Wales	Cited for the Bolam-Bolitho Test, which applies to determine whether a doctor has breached his duty of care to a patient.
Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 492	Singapore	Cited for the principles of the Bolam-Bolitho Test.
Re LP (adult patient: medical treatment)	High Court	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 13	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in situations where doctors are unable to obtain clear and express consent of their patient to proceed with any medical treatment, their only course is to act in the best interests of the patient.
Goh Guan Sin (by her litigation representative Chiam Yu Zhu) v Yeo Tseng Tsai and another	High Court	Yes	[2021] 3 SLR 364	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in a situation where emergency and immediate treatment was needed to prevent the patient’s death, the legal significance of consent paled in importance compared to acting in the patient’s best interests.
Chandra Winata Lie v Citibank NA	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 875	Singapore	Cited for the principle that pleadings must fairly apprise the defendants of the case they have to meet in their defence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court 2021
O 9 r 16(1) of the Rules of Court 2021
O 9 r 16(2) of the Rules of Court 2021
O 3 r 1 of the ROC 2021
O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2014
Practice Direction 163(1) of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Limitation Act	Singapore
s 6(1) of the Limitation Act	Singapore
s 24A(2) of the Limitation Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Medical negligence
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Subdural haematoma
Limitation period
Striking out
Abuse of process
Time-barred
Metformin
Diagnosis
Consent
Standard of care

15.2 Keywords

Medical negligence
Striking out
Limitation
Time-barred
Abuse of process
Diabetes
Negligence
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Medical Negligence	95
Limitation	80
Civil Procedure	75
Personal Injury	60

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Medical Negligence
Limitation of Actions