SGH denies any negligence with patient who lost limbs after procedure
Ms Sarina Kaur with her lawyer at a press conference at her home on Nov 6, 2015. Photo: Jason Quah/TODAY
SINGAPORE — Doctors at the Singapore General Hospital (SGH) had duly assessed Ms Sarina Kaur before making “reasonable clinical decisions”, said the hospital, which flatly denied claims that the injuries and losses sustained by the 51-year-old — including the loss of both her hands and lower legs — resulted from negligence on their part as well as two of its doctors.
Ms Kaur is seeking more than S$8 million from the hospital, claiming that Dr Ng Lay Guat, the head of SGH’s urology department, had gone through with a procedure in 2012 even though prior tests showed she had an infection. She later suffered from blood poisoning, leading to the loss of her limbs.
In defence papers filed last month, the hospital’s lawyers said Dr Ng had conveyed to Ms Kaur the risk of infection and obstruction arising from the procedure. The papers said Ms Kaur also had the opportunity to ask questions. The procedure in question is called the Deflux procedure. Ms Kaur, who has a medical history of multiple sclerosis and recurrent urinary tract infections, also suffered from vesico-ureteric reflex, which was causing the backflow of urine from her bladder to her kidney.
The Deflux procedure is meant to reduce the symptoms and frequency of the abnormal urinary conditions.
The lawyers noted that, with Ms Kaur’s consent, appropriate tests were carried out before the procedure. While bacteria was observed in Ms Kaur’s urine, this was “not conclusive of infection” and did not impede the decision to go ahead with the procedure, provided that measures to minimise risks were taken, the lawyers argued.
In a separate filing, lawyers representing Dr Ng, who is also being sued by Ms Kaur, pointed out that Ms Kaur’s medical history made it difficult to render her urine completely sterile. They also argued that Dr Du Jingzeng, the third defendant in the case, had ensured that Ms Kaur’s blood pressure was closely monitored after she developed a fever and became hypotensive following the procedure. But despite the doctors’ “best efforts and maximal inotropic support”, Ms Kaur’s condition deteriorated, said the lawyers. The lawyers disputed her charge that Dr Ng and her team did not act according to standard practice to relieve the adverse symptoms, such as swelling in her right kidney.
The lawyers further argued that Ms Kaur’s septic condition may have been the result of her underlying medical history and abnormal bladder condition, which predisposed her to urinary tract and kidney infections. Also, the risk of infection was “inherent” in the Deflux procedure, which materialised “despite the exercise of reasonable care and skill”.
In a response to the defendants that was filed yesterday, Ms Kaur’s lawyers said Dr Ng had not explained that the procedure would be “more high-risk and complicated for her” due to her medical history. Ms Kaur was also not apprised of the risks of infection and obstruction that might arise as a result. Instead, Dr Ng had told Ms Kaur “not to worry” in a consultation that took place over 10 minutes, they said.
The case is scheduled for a pre-trial conference on Feb 11.
