Woman ordered to pay $975k in costs to 2 hospitals after losing suit over amputation of mum’s leg
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 17 Jan 2026
Author: Selina Lum
The High Court cited Ms Meenachi's "unreasonable conduct" in awarding indemnity costs to the hospitals, as she rejected settlement offers and caused unnecessary trial complications.
A woman who sued two hospitals for negligence over the amputation of her mother’s leg has been ordered to pay costs totalling over $975,000 to the defendants. The case was dismissed by the High Court.
The lawsuit alleged that negligence by National University Hospital (NUH) and Ang Mo Kio-Thye Hua Kwan Hospital (AMKH) led to the development and worsening of wounds on Madam Parvaty Raju’s right heel and shin. An above-knee amputation was deemed necessary in 2021.
The following year, Madam Parvaty sued the two hospitals.
Her daughter, Ms Meenachi Suppiah, took over as the claimant after she died at the age of 75 in 2023 from coronary artery disease and end-stage renal failure.
The lawsuit was dismissed on Aug 28, 2025, after a 15-day trial, and the costs orders were made on Oct 15.
In written grounds of decision issued on Jan 12, Justice Mavis Chionh said she ordered legal costs on an indemnity basis because of Ms Meenachi’s unreasonable conduct before and during the trial.
Costs on an indemnity basis, which are of a higher quantum than standard costs, are awarded to the winning party in exceptional circumstances when the other party’s conduct is found to be unreasonable.
Justice Chionh said multiple offers from both hospitals to settle were not taken up.
Ms Meenachi took one year to respond to the defendants’ first joint offer, which was made in February 2024 and rejected in February 2025.
The judge said that when genuine attempts to reach amicable resolution are rebuffed by a party who ends up worse off than the terms offered, the other parties should not have to bear the resulting costs that might have been saved.
Justice Chionh also listed examples of unreasonable conduct by Ms Meenachi which created additional work for the defendants, prolonged the trial or created “entirely unnecessary complications”.
For example, Ms Meenachi’s lawyer, Mr Vijay Kumar Rai, had insisted before the trial that his client would not accept the authenticity of the hospitals’ medical records.
This led to each of the defendants having to call an additional witness and to prepare the corresponding affidavits to attest to the authenticity of the records.
“Ironically, in the closing submissions filed on behalf of the claimant, counsel actually made copious references to many of these medical records,” the judge noted.
Justice Chionh said costs on a standard basis should be $360,000 for NUH and $260,000 for AMKH, but a one-third uplift was warranted.
She awarded costs of $470,000 to NUH and $350,000 to AMKH. The hospitals were represented by Senior Counsel Kuah Boon Theng and Ms Mar Seow Hwei, respectively.
The judge also awarded more than $101,000 to NUH and over $53,000 to AMKH in disbursements, which are out-of-pocket expenses.
In September 2020, Madam Parvaty went to NUH for severe pain in her right knee.
At the time, she was undergoing dialysis for end-stage renal failure and also suffered from diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, hypertension, hypothyroidism, high blood cholesterol and severe aortic valve disease.
She was admitted between Sept 9, 2020, and Sept 19, 2020, and admitted again between Sept 25, 2020, and Jan 13, 2021.
During her stay, on Nov 29, a wound on her heel was assessed to have developed into dry gangrene.
According to NUH, the gangrene remained dry and was not infected for the remainder of her hospital stay up to her discharge to AMKH on Jan 13, 2021.
While she was at AMKH, the wound deteriorated and she was transferred back to NUH on Feb 5.
The NUH vascular team on Feb 7 raised the possibility of an amputation, but was told by her children that she had said “she would rather die than have a major amputation”.
Madam Parvaty ultimately agreed to proceed with amputation but asked for the surgery to be done on Feb 19, the day after her birthday.
She was discharged on March 22 and reviewed on seven occasions following her discharge.
The lawsuit alleged that NUH was negligent for failing to prevent a deep tissue injury on her heel from worsening, deciding to treat her dry gangrene conservatively, and discharging her to AMKH.
AMKH was alleged to be negligent in causing the dry gangrene to deteriorate.
Justice Chionh said NUH had implemented precautions to reduce the risk of pressure injuries, which include placing Madam Parvaty on a pressure-relieving mattress, placing her heels in foam protectors and placing two pillows under her calf to keep it elevated.
The judge said NUH’s reason to treat the dry gangrene conservatively was justified.
She said the evidence showed convincingly that there was no infection present beneath the dry gangrene. Moreover, the uninfected dry gangrene functioned as a “biological plaster” to protect the underlying tissue from potential infection.
The judge said extensive tests and investigations were carried out to confirm that Madam Parvaty was fit to be discharged, including a PET-CT scan to detect infection, which is not normally ordered in such situations.
Justice Chionh added that there was no undue delay by AMKH in referring Madam Parvaty back to NUH.
Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
1077