Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien

Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien [2017] 2 SLR 492 is a landmark Court of Appeal decision that replaced the Bolam test for medical advice and disclosure with a modified Montgomery patient-centred standard. The case establishes that a doctor's duty to advise patients on material risks must be assessed from the perspective of what a reasonable patient would want to know, not solely by reference to what a responsible body of medical practitioners would disclose.

The case involved a claim for medical negligence relating to the adequacy of advice and disclosure of risks by a medical practitioner. The appellant challenged the application of the Bolam test to the question of whether the doctor had adequately informed him of material risks associated with a medical procedure.

Whether the Bolam test should continue to apply to a doctor's duty to advise patients on the material risks of proposed treatment, or whether a more patient-centred standard should be adopted.

The Court of Appeal held that the Bolam test no longer applies to the duty of a doctor to advise patients on material risks. In its place, Singapore adopted a modified version of the Montgomery test, which requires doctors to disclose risks that a reasonable person in the patient's position would attach significance to, or that the doctor knows or should reasonably know the particular patient would find significant.

A doctor's duty to advise patients on material risks of treatment is to be assessed by a patient-centred standard: a doctor must disclose risks that a reasonable person in the patient's position would regard as material, or that the doctor knows or should know the particular patient would consider material, rather than by reference solely to what a responsible body of medical opinion would disclose.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the Bolam test, while appropriate for assessing standards of diagnosis and treatment where technical medical expertise is required, is unsuited to the context of advice and disclosure. Informed consent is grounded in patient autonomy and the right to make decisions about one's own body. A reasonable patient standard better reflects the legal and ethical imperatives of contemporary medical practice, although the court modified Montgomery to account for the doctor's therapeutic privilege and the particular circumstances of the patient.

The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the Bolam test continues to apply to questions of diagnosis and treatment where the assessment turns on technical medical expertise.

This case is essential study for all Singapore law students in tort and medical law. It marks a fundamental shift in the law of medical negligence from a professionally defined to a patient-centred disclosure standard, reflecting modern values of patient autonomy and informed consent.

Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien [2017] 2 SLR 492 (CA)