The former mistress a doctor sued her ex-lover, saying that he prescribed ‘addictive’ pills to her without registering her as a patient. As a result, after the two broke up, she got cut off from the drug supply, as the doctor did not refer her to other doctors. She alleged that he was therefore negligent and filed a complaint. The High Court heard the claim against the doctor.
The plaintiff Serene Tiong (44 years old) and the defendant Dr Chan Herng Nieng had an affair and have now broken up. Dr Chan was a senior consultant psychiatrist at the Singapore General Hospital at that time.
Ms Tiong’s lawyer that she dated Dr Chan for about a year and a half, during which time he prescribed ‘addictive’ pills such as Xanax and Trazodone to deal with her anxiety.
The plaintiff alleged that the doctor prescribed medicine to her in her own name and then passed it on to her to take, without registering her in the hospital patient records.
In order to prove that he was telling the truth, the prosecutor stated that he had a text message with Dr Chan, showing that he began to provide her with sedatives as early as January 20, 2017, for a period of 11 months.
The plaintiff also accused Dr Chan of not taking treatment notes, cutting off her drug supply after the two broke up, and not even referring her to other doctors.
The plaintiff stated that although Dr Chan did not register her as a patient, she was given sedatives, so she was considered a patient of the doctor.
The plaintiff claimed that she was addicted to taking medicine, and that she had side effects such as slurred speech, irritability, and cognitive difficulties afterwards, and she needed psychiatric treatment and counseling.
The plaintiff alleged that Dr Chan’s various actions violated the doctor’s obligations to the patient, so she sued the other party for negligence and demanded compensation.
It is understood that the plaintiff is seeking compensation of about $180,000.
Doctor denies accusation: offering drugs on lover’s stand
The doctor denied the allegations, saying that although he had given the plaintiff a sedative, which is a duty of care, he provided the drug from the standpoint of a lover, not a doctor.
Dr Chan pointed out that the plaintiff was unable to prove that he violated his duty of care and caused the plaintiff to suffer losses. The plaintiff’s allegations were groundless and contradictory, and the plaintiff just wanted to destroy him at all costs.
The Medical Council had earlier intervened and investigated Serene Tiong’s complaint, and Dr Chan was suspended for five months. He appealed against it, which has so far been inconclusive.