SINGAPORE: A woman is suing her obstetrician for negligence that allegedly led to her sustaining injuries during a natural delivery, which she claims will affect future pregnancies.
Ms Cherissa Cheng, 32, suffered a tear that led to her excreting faecal matter from her vagina for months, even after her doctor repaired the wound with stitches.
She also purportedly developed post-partum depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, including difficulties bonding with her child.
Ms Cheng, who planned for three kids with her husband, claims her injuries will cause future pregnancy complications, and have already affected her enjoyment of children and quality of life.
Her physician, Dr Khoo Chong Kiat, is a senior obstetrician and gynaecologist practising at CK Khoo Clinic for Women & Laparoscopy under Royal Clinics of O&G.
In a trial that opened at the High Court on Tuesday (Feb 4), Ms Cheng alleges that Dr Khoo and Royal Clinics of O&G were medically negligent and committed battery against her.
Ms Cheng started attending consultations with Dr Khoo in September 2019. It was her first pregnancy.
At her first consultation, Ms Cheng purportedly told Dr Khoo that her mother experienced prolonged labour due to her cervix not dilating, and eventually received an emergency caesarean section.
According to her lawyers, Mr Cumara K and Ms Celestine Tolentino from Selvam LLC, she expressed concerns about natural delivery but Dr Khoo assured her she would be able to deliver naturally.
Ms Cheng went to the hospital to induce labour at midnight on May 2, 2020. She gave birth to her baby through natural delivery at about 10.35am on May 3, 2020.
She alleges that during her labour, Dr Khoo manually widened her cervix, applied pressure to her abdomen and made an incision to aid the birth. After the birth, he repaired a tear with stitches.
These actions amounted to battery, and she was not told about the risks or did not give informed consent to these aspects of the delivery, she claims.
According to Ms Cheng, an emergency C-section was required by 9.25am on May 3, 2020 and she consented to it, while Dr Khoo also ordered the surgery.
However, he subsequently “abandoned the emergency C-section that Ms Cheng wanted” and manually dilated her cervix from 4cm to 10cm so that the natural birth could continue, her lawyers argue.
Dr Khoo’s lawyers Ms Kuah Boon Theng, Ms Theodora Kee and Ms Kimberly Chia from Legal Clinic LLC dispute this version of events.
Their case is that Dr Khoo discovered that Ms Cheng was fully dilated at 9.40am, and informed her that she could proceed with natural delivery as originally planned.
He claims that he did not manually widen Ms Cheng’s cervix, which dilated because of contractions, and that applying pressure to her abdomen was appropriate as she was fatigued.
Both sides also disagree on whether Ms Cheng experienced a prolonged labour, and whether she should have been informed of the associated risks.
After the birth, Dr Khoo saw a 0.5cm tear. He repaired the tear in the delivery suite and discharged Ms Cheng the next day, on May 4, 2020.
Ms Cheng’s case is that she believed the stitching was standard routine, and that Dr Khoo did not inform her she had sustained a tear at that part of her body.
She also alleges that his repair did not meet the required standard of care, and that his subsequent management of her injuries was inappropriate.
Dr Khoo’s case is that he informed Ms Cheng of the tear, that the repair he performed was well within his expertise and done with the necessary precautions, and that his management of the injuries was appropriate.
After being discharged, Ms Cheng noticed faecal matter coming out of her vagina and saw Dr Khoo again on May 6, 2020.
According to Ms Cheng, at this meeting, Dr Khoo said there were gaps in the stitching he had done, and that she had suffered an injury in the form of an abnormal connection between her rectum and vagina.
She claims this was the first time she was informed that she was injured during the delivery.
Ms Cheng then consulted a colorectal specialist and was admitted to an emergency department later that day. She eventually received surgery to repair her injuries around October 2020.
Ms Cheng is claiming damages for pain and suffering, and the impact on her quality of life. She is also claiming for her and her husband’s loss of future earnings, as the couple changed jobs to adapt to the needs arising from her injuries.
“What was supposed to be a happy occasion became a painful ordeal because the claimant was (and remains to an extent) in a miserable state mentally and physically,” her lawyers said.
“The claimant should have had the right and opportunity to bond with her own infant and experience the joys of motherhood right away.”
Instead, the childbirth experience resulted in Ms Cheng “wanting for some time to give her infant away and feeling that life was meaningless”, they said.
Dr Khoo’s lawyers argue that he met the standards of care at all times. As a result, Ms Cheng delivered a healthy baby, received timely treatment from specialists when the repair of the tear broke down, and is now fully healed, they said.
His lawyers said that while the birth of a baby “is a joyous event, it can also bring along with it a fair amount of stress and adjustment, especially to a first-time mother”.
“The claimant was no doubt affected by having to deal with the complication she sustained, which required her to have medical treatment so soon after the delivery.
“The claimant and her family members responded by being angry with Dr Khoo,” the lawyers said.
The trial continues at the High Court.
