- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 3,657
- Points
- 0
PROMINENT surgeon Susan Lim has failed in her attempt in the High Court to stop a second disciplinary committee from being appointed to look into a complaint against her for overcharging.
Dr Lim had faced a disciplinary committee (DC) hearing in 2010 into charges alleging that she had overcharged a patient, a female member of the Brunei royal family.
But the committee hearing the case stepped down before giving a verdict, after it was accused by Dr Lim's lawyers of pre-judging the case. When the Singapore Medical Council set up a second DC to look into the charges, Dr Lim went to the High Court to challenge SMC's decision.
Justice Philip Pillai - in a written judgment on Thursday - said that Dr Lim had failed to show that the SMC's decision to refer the complaint to the second DC was illegal or biased as she had alleged.
He said the Medical Regulation Act (MRA) does empower the SMC to appoint the second DC upon the revocation of the entire first DC's appointment. Since the first DC had not issued any findings and decision, the power of the SMC to appoint a DC under the MRA has not been spent.
Justice Pillai said that Dr Lim has asked the court to infer that the SMC's decision was tainted by bias, but there is nothing on the record to show personal bias or abuse of position on the part of any SMC member.
Dr Lim had faced a disciplinary committee (DC) hearing in 2010 into charges alleging that she had overcharged a patient, a female member of the Brunei royal family.
But the committee hearing the case stepped down before giving a verdict, after it was accused by Dr Lim's lawyers of pre-judging the case. When the Singapore Medical Council set up a second DC to look into the charges, Dr Lim went to the High Court to challenge SMC's decision.
Justice Philip Pillai - in a written judgment on Thursday - said that Dr Lim had failed to show that the SMC's decision to refer the complaint to the second DC was illegal or biased as she had alleged.
He said the Medical Regulation Act (MRA) does empower the SMC to appoint the second DC upon the revocation of the entire first DC's appointment. Since the first DC had not issued any findings and decision, the power of the SMC to appoint a DC under the MRA has not been spent.
Justice Pillai said that Dr Lim has asked the court to infer that the SMC's decision was tainted by bias, but there is nothing on the record to show personal bias or abuse of position on the part of any SMC member.
