Surgeon Susan Lim files appeal against suspension & fine

By Monica Kotwani

SINGAPORE: Surgeon Susan Lim has filed an appeal to the High Court, against the punishment meted out by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC).

Channel NewsAsia understands the SMC has ruled that Dr Lim be suspended from practice for three years, fined S$10,000 and censured in writing.

Channel NewsAsia understands she was found guilty of 94 charges of professional misconduct in July.

The case revolves around overcharging the late sister of the Brunei queen.

Dr Lim's bill for treating Pengiran Anak Hajah Damit over seven months came up to S$25 million.

The patient died of cancer in 2007.

Dr Lim's case has been in the spotlight since 2010, when Singapore's Health Ministry filed charges of professional misconduct with SMC.

Dr Lim's lawyers told Channel NewsAsia in a statement that they would present submissions to the Court on the errors of law and of fact committed by the Disciplinary Committee in reaching its decision.

They want the court to reverse the decision in its entirety.

Channel NewsAsia understands the case will be heard in the second week of January 2013.

Dipetik dari - Channel NewsAsia


Doctors "ethically bound" not to charge unfair fees: SMC

SINGAPORE: Doctors here are ethically bound not to charge unfair and unreasonable fees for their services, said the Singapore Medical Council's (SMC) lawyers in a 190-page statement.

The statement was a response to prominent surgeon Susan Lim's appeal against her three-year suspension and S$10,000 fine for professional misconduct.

The council had found Dr Lim guilty of 94 charges, the bulk of which involved overcharging the late sister of Brunei's Queen, whose bills amounted to S$24.8 million for care rendered in 2007.

In her appeal, Dr Lim, 57, argued, among several other things, that Singapore does not have any guidelines or a cap on what a doctor can charge a patient.

According to documents submitted to the court, SMC's lawyers from WongPartnership pointed out that "there is an intrinsic ethical limit prohibiting doctors from charging unfair and unreasonable fees".

"Excessive charging undermines the foundation of any profession based on honour, trust and integrity", they said.

Drawing reference from the legal fraternity, SMC's lawyers argued that the principles of honour and integrity apply to the medical profession with or without written rules in their ethical guidelines.

Pointing out that Dr Lim's fees are in "an extraordinary class of exorbitance on its own", they also said that the assessment of a practitioner's fee is determined objectively by her peers.

While Dr Lim has insisted that the fees were agreed between her and her patient, the SMC's disciplinary committee ruled otherwise.

Even if there was a fee agreement, "that does not mean that it is ethical â?¦ for a doctor to charge excessive fees", the lawyers said.

"As a concomitant, whilst a fee agreement can be valid under general contract law, that does not mean that the agreement is ethical under the rules of professional conduct," they added.

In the legal profession, for example, the courts have also previously ruled that solicitors might be found guilty of overcharging despite having a fee agreement, the lawyers noted.

They reiterated that the case is not one of inadvertence or negligence - Dr Lim knew what she was doing was wrong.

Not showing remorse, she continued to assert that there was nothing wrong with her conduct, the lawyers said.

They reiterated that "it is not the SMC's intention to make a public example of Dr Lim".

The SMC is charged with the statutory duty to regulate the conduct and ethics of registered medical practitioners, and to uphold the standards and reputation of the medical profession, the lawyers said.

"And it is a matter of fundamental importanceâ?¦ that practitioners refrain from levying grossly excessive, unfair and unreasonable fees that bring the entire profession into disrepute," said the lawyers.

It is "equally important that medical practitioners maintain the highest standards of integrity in their billing practices", they said.

"That, however, is precisely what Dr Lim has not done."

The court is scheduled to hear Dr Lim's appeal in January 2013.

Dipetik dari - inSing.com