1 After the release of my judgment in Soh Keng Cheang Philip v National University Hospital (S) Pte Ltd [2021] SGHC 243 (“the Judgment”), the defendant’s solicitors wrote to the court to seek clarification on the issue of the counterclaim raised by the defendant in relation to the outstanding hospital bills amounting to $26,463.73.

2 The plaintiff did not dispute that these expenses were incurred for his treatment and care at the defendant hospital, nor is it disputed that the plaintiff did not pay the bills. His case is that he refused to pay the bills because he was a subsidised patient, and sometimes the subsidy could cover 100% of the expenses. Another contention raised by the plaintiff’s counsel, as was put to the defendant’s witness, DW10 - Ms Chow Wei Li Gillian, a Senior Assistant Director in the Patient Relations Department of the defendant, was that the tax invoices issued to the plaintiff showed that the sum due to the defendant was “0”, and thus no outstanding sum was due.

3 I find that the defendant is entitled to the payment of the sum of $26,463.73. Ms Chow attested that this sum was arrived at after deducting all the government subsidies the plaintiff was entitled to, as corroborated by the invoices. As for the plaintiff’s counsel’s contention that the sum due was “0” on some of the invoices, Ms Chow had explained that the hospital had put the bills on hold pending the outcome of this Suit. This is clearly stated in the invoices, that the sums due were “Pending” due to “medical affairs investig” [sic]. The plaintiff’s contentions are thus without merit. Now that the dispute has been dealt with in the Judgment, the hospital should be duly paid and I so order.