Suspension terms of 2 doctors tripled by judges over attempted sex with female patient

In its judgment, the Court of Three Judges – comprising of Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justices of the Court of Appeal Andrew Phang and Tay Yong Kwang – said that the Disciplinary Tribunal had not erred in finding both doctors guilty of improper conduct which brought disrepute to the medical profession. 

K was a property agent who consulted and underwent a medical procedure by Dr Ong on Mar 19, 2018. She was discharged a day later. Some time within those two days, Dr Ong obtained her consent to share her contact details with Dr Chan, on the supposed basis that Dr Chan was looking to purchase a property.

Dr Ong then shared K’s contact details with Dr Chan via WhatsApp conversation, in which he also told Dr Chan to “feel free to play your game”. 

In the messages, Dr Chan asked Dr Ong: “Can ask her for drinks instead?”, and Dr Ong replied “sure”. 

Dr Chan then texted “Me? Out of the blue ask her?”

Dr Ong made a crude suggestion before replying: “She’s expecting you re (sic) the property mah.” 

Dr Chan then stated: “I can’t decide to go thru the property route.”

Dr Chan eventually did not meet K. 

Based on the evidence, the judges were satisfied that Dr Ong had set up an introduction for K to be contacted by Dr Chan under the pretext of Dr Chan’s feigned interest in a potential property transaction. 

Both knew that property was not the real point of the introduction, which was to help Chan to pursue his own agenda of having sex with K. 

During their appeals, both doctors raised similar arguments against their convictions, which was that the messages were for property investment purposes. They argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that both doctors had colluded for the purposes of sexually exploiting K. 

However, the Court of Three Judges rejected the argument after considering the context and interpretation of the messages in question. 

“It is clear that this is a case that involves significant harm to public confidence in the medical profession. What Dr Ong did was an abuse of the trust and confidence that a patient had reposed in him for the potential sexual benefit of Dr Chan,” said the judges. 

“Further, it was not only disrespectful to K, but it also dehumanised her into an object for sexual gratification.”

That no actual harm was caused to K missed the point, they added. 

“Such an assertion is true only in the limited sense that she was not compelled to engage in sexual relations with Dr Chan under false pretences.”  

The judges said that it “cannot be denied that K suffered humiliation and indignity as a result of the doctors’ actions”. The fact that K was Dr Ong’s patient was aggravating, the judges said. 

“If actual physical harm had been caused to K, the sanction called for would likely have been a striking out order,” they said. 

“In our judgment, the harm to public confidence cannot be understated. Patients are entitled to expect that their doctors will display a high standard of professional conduct in their dealings and interactions with them. This extends to how their doctors handle their personal information and their details even after the end of their interactions.” 

No mitigating weight should be given to Dr Ong or Dr Chan’s clean record as a medical professional, the judges said. Instead, they found that the seniority of both doctors amplified the negative impact of their misconduct on public confidence in the medical profession. 

They also found Dr Ong’s claim of remorse was negated by his oral testimony where he maintained there was “nothing sexual” and no professional misconduct. 

The judges found that longer sentences for both doctors were warranted. They determined that the Disciplinary Tribunal’s orders that both doctors be censured and provide a written undertaking still stand.