A general surgeon who runs his own clinic at Mount Elizabeth Novena Hospital has lost his defamation suit against a woman who claimed that he and a psychiatrist were taking sexual advantage of vulnerable female patients.
According to court documents, Julian Ong Kian Peng claimed that he had been "injured in his reputation and wellbeing" and had "suffered distress, hurt and embarrassment" as a result of claims made by the woman.
However, his lawsuit against her, which began in July 2018, was dismissed with costs on April 3 by District Judge Lynette Yap, who said that the woman was justified in her claims.
Woman having extra-marital affair with Ong's friend, a psychiatrist at SGH
From January 2017 to May 2018, the woman had an extra-marital affair with Chan Hern Nieng, who was a senior consultant of psychiatry at Singapore General Hospital (SGH).
She was also his patient at the time.
The relationship between the two was generally smooth sailing until April 22, which was during their vacation to Eastern Europe.
She had accessed Chan's handphone and had taken photographs of various WhatsApp messages between him and Ong.
The relationship between the two then started to deteriorate, and ended sometime around May 29.
Woman submits complaint against Chan and Ong to Singapore Medical Council
On June 19, the defendant submitted a complaint against Chan and Ong to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC).
She then sent emails to a number of doctors, largely Chan's colleagues, department heads and the management at SGH as well as two doctors in private practice.
In these emails, the woman wrote that Chan had been colluding with Ong to "take advantage of other vulnerable woman patients".
She also mentioned that she suspects Chan "uses his reputation as a platform" to "source and groom the patients turned victims" with Ong.
"Both doctors exchanged potential patients and colleagues who were deemed easily taken advantage of to satisfy their immoral desires", the defendant added.
On July 4, Ong commenced action against the defendant for defamation.
He claimed that the defendant had injured his "reputation and wellbeing", causing him to suffer "distress, embarrassment and hurt to his feelings".
Trial and judgment
During the hearing, Judge Yap said that the main charge which the woman needed to justify was that:
(i) Chan colluded with the plaintiff to take advantage of vulnerable female patients;
(ii) Ong and Chan used their position as doctors to source for patients to have sex with;
(iii) they exchanged information about these women.
She then pointed out that if the woman could "prove that this main charge was substantially true, there was no need for her to justify charges which did not add to the sting."
Based on the following evidence listed below, Yap upheld the woman's claims and concluded that they were "substantially true":
Evidence one
Ong sought to have sexual activities with the woman.
During the cross-examination, Ong admitted that he had suggested Chan, the woman, himself and another party have a foursome, naming the defendant specifically as a party he wanted to have group sex with.
According to Judge Yap, the evidence in WhatsApp messages show that Ong sought to collude with Chan to have sexual activities with the woman.
Evidence two
Ong had forwarded Chan the contact details of one of his patients, K.
The aim is for Chan to try to have sexual activities with her.
After providing K's details, Ong told Chan to "feel free to play your game".
In the cross-examination, Ong denied that this was a reference to anal sex and said that it was a mere "bad joke".
However, Judge Yap found Ong's explanation to be "incredulous".
This is because the context of these messages show that Ong and Chan were discussing about how to meet more women for sex.
The WhatsApp messages therefore clearly show that Chan sought to collude with Ong to take advantage of Ong's patient, and that Ong had forwarded her contact details to Chan, and encouraged Chan to try to have sexual activities with her.
Evidence three
Ong introduced women he was having sexual activities with to Chan for him to do the same.
Ong shared naked photos of one woman with Chan, saying he was giving Chan a "preview".
Chan later admitted that Ong had in fact introduced the woman to him. Chan also did go on to have sex with her.
During cross-examination, Ong admitted that Chan and him wanted to increase their sexual activities.
Ong expressly told Chan that they needed to meet more of such women.
Chan admitted during cross-examination that he was asking Ong for somebody to bring to a sex party.
According to Judge Yap, the WhatsApp messages clearly showed that Ong and Chan colluded with each other to look for women to have sex.
She added that there is "undisputed evidence" that at least the defendant and K were two patients whom Chan and Ong colluded to try to take advantage of.
Rejection of defence claims
Ong's lawyer had argued that there was no proof that the patients whom Chan and Ong sought to have sex with were "vulnerable".
However, Judge Yap rejected this argument by stating that "the relationship between doctor and patient is necessarily one of trust."
In particular, she noted that Chan is a psychiatrist, whose practice involves patients with mental health issues, such as anxiety or depression, where a high level of trust between doctor and patient is required.
"To be clear, it is this court’s view that any doctor who seeks to have sex with his patient or pass a patient to another doctor to have sex with that patient, is interacting with a vulnerable person vis-a-vis that doctor," said Judge Yap.
Ong has since appealed this judgment in High Court.
Top image via Julian Ong Endoscopy & Surgery and SingHealth