Follow us on Telegram for the latest updates: https://t.me/mothershipsg

A woman embarked on a "quest for revenge" after learning that the male psychiatrist whom she had an affair with was unfaithful to her.

She took him to court and lost the lawsuit on Jul. 19, but the judge said in his ruling that there was "no true winner" in the "entire debacle".

Background of pair's history

Serene Tiong Sze Yin, entered into an intimate extramarital affair with Chan Herng Nieng, the owner and psychiatrist at Capital Mind Health Clinic, while she was married in early 2017, according to court documents.

All was smooth sailing until Tiong unlocked Chan's phone with his thumbprint while he was asleep.

She discovered explicit WhatsApp messages where Chan exchanged "sordid" details and bragged about his sexual conquests with other married women to one Julian Ong Kian Peng, who is a colorectal surgeon who operates Julian Ong Endoscopy & Surgery Pte Ltd.

This took place towards the tail-end of the couple's overseas trip and their relationship began to crumble after they returned from the eastern European holiday on Apr. 25, 2018.

This was despite Tiong wanting to to continue the relationship initially.

She intended to marry Chan eventually, but he "spurned her love for him", and Tiong thus began her "quest for revenge", the court ruling said.

What the lawsuit was about

She took their "lover's spat" to court and alleged that Chan was medically negligent – breached professional conduct and his duty of care – by plying her with high dosages of a supposedly addictive drug, Xanax, amongst other things.

Tiong claimed that she became addicted and suffered significant side effects after consuming Xanax, according to court documents.

Next, she alleged that Chan made a statement saying to her that "he was committed to having a long-term and exclusive sexual relationship with her" to induce her into sexual relations with him all whilst without the intention of honouring it.

As a result, she claimed that she has supposedly suffered significant psychiatric harm at the hands of Chan.

What the Judge found

High Court judge Tan Siong Thye presided over the Jul. 19 hearing and detailed his findings as follows:

On breach of conduct

Justice Tan said whether Chan had breached the professional standard duty of care by a psychiatrist was beyond the court's jurisdiction as the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) is the governing body that regulates and polices the professional conduct of psychiatrists.

Even if Chan was found to have acted in breach, it would not been relevant to Tiong's claim, as the crux of the matter was whether Chan was negligent when he gave Tiong the Xanax medication.

Nevertheless, Justice Tan examined and expounded on the matter as Tiong had spent a "considerable" amount of time claiming that Chan had breached his professional standard by doing the following, inter alia:

• Providing care and treatment to Tiong, despite their close and personal relationship
• Prescribing her with Xanax, which was a "controlled drug" with a potential for dependency
• Having sexual relations with Tiong, despite their "doctor-patient" relationship

Justice Tan took reference from SMC's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG), but stressed that it was a guideline for practitioners to exercise their clinical judgement instead of a be all and end all.

In that regard, Justice Tan found that Chan had provided care and prescribed Xanax to his "loved one", Tiong, in an objective manner as she was suffering a "minor condition", all of which Tan said were in accordance to the ECEG.

Next, Justice Tan referenced the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (2020 Rev Ed) and concluded that Xanax is not a controlled drug.

Neither is Xanax a drug with significant potential for dependence, despite the fact that it is listed in the Schedule to the Poisons Act, which also lists other common drugs such as Amoxycillin and Zyrtec.

The former is an antibiotic used commonly to treat bacterial infections, while the latter is an anti-histamine which can be bought over-the-counter from local pharmacies without a prescription.

Lastly, Justice Tan noted that Chan and Tiong had a pre-existing sexual relationship and were lovers before she became his "patient" and he gave her Xanax.

He ultimately found that Chan did not act in breach of his professional standards of a physician.

On duty of care

Next, Justice Tan addressed Tiong's claim that Chan had breached his duty of care by prescribing Xanax to her.

Tiong had also claimed to have suffered side effects from and became addicted to the drug, after consuming frequent and high doses.

Justice Tan found that Tiong was a thoroughly unreliable witness who gave inconsistent evidence on oath and even changed her statement multiple times when she took to the stand, amongst other things, according to court documents.

As such, he believed Chan's version of events -- specifically the number and frequency of Xanax prescribed -- over Tiong's.

He added that even if Chan had prescribed the highest number of Xanax to Tiong, which was 330 tablets based on one of her accounts, expert evidence showed that the risk of physical dependency remains low.

According to expert evidence, the possible side effects caused by consuming Xanax are drowsiness, cognitive difficulty and slurred speech.

However, the risk of suffering all of these side effects is low and short-term.

This is contrary to Tiong's claim of memory loss, suicidal thoughts, breathing difficulties, stress and an inability to fall asleep, which she claimed to have suffered after more than a year of consuming Xanax.

This, amongst other things, led Justice Tan to rule that Chan did not act in breach of his duty of care and he ultimately dismissed her claim of medical negligence.

On the "false" statement

With regard to Tiong's claim that Chan had made a false statement of having a long-term and exclusive relationship with her to induce her to have sex with him, Justice Tan raised the question of whether one can take one's ex-lover to court for his or her broken promises during the relationship.

For starters, there was a lack of evidence and Tiong could not point to an instance when Chan had explicitly made the statement.

Justice Tan also noted that Tiong changed tune during cross-examination.

Tiong had said Chan did not make such a statement, but she arrived at the belief that Chan was committed to a long-term and exclusive sexual relationship with her based on his conduct, according to court documents.

Justice Tan found otherwise, as Chan had raised the topic of having group sex with Tiong in several instances throughout their "relationship".

Chan had also expressed that he was "fine" if Tiong wished to see other men, "as long as she [was] upfront with [him] about it", after he found out that she was still communicating with two of her ex-lovers, one of which was her ex-husband.

Lastly, Chan was having sex with other married women behind Tiong's back, which was a double standard noted by Justice Tan. He only got found out by Tiong during their Europe trip.

Justice Tan said a long-term and exclusive relationship was ultimately Tiong's unreciprocated one-sided intention due to the lack of evidence and Chan's contradictory conduct, amongst other things.

He also noted that the pair had sex just two weeks after they met and therefore refuted Tiong's claim that Chan had made the statement to have sex with her.

Finally, he threw out Tiong's claim of suffering psychiatric harm at the hands of Chan's false statement. If that were the case, she would not have continued in a relationship with Chan.

Yet there exists key evidence that Tiong would have continued her relationship with Chan, with a view of marrying him, despite her discovery of the WhatsApp Messages, according to court documents.

"No true winner"

Justice Tan dismissed and ruled against all of Tiong's claims.

Describing Tiong's actions as vitriolic, he noted that the case was best described by the adage, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

He drew the hearing to a close, saying: "Ultimately, no true winner has emerged from this entire debacle."

"Although I have ruled against Tiong, Chan has borne, and will continue to bear, the shame of having his wanton and depraved behaviour aired in public for all to see."

He ordered Tiong to pay costs to Chan.

Related stories

Top image from Serene Tiong/Facebook and Capital Mind Health website