Chew Soo Ho JC:

THE PARTIES

[1]The first plaintiff is the husband while the second plaintiff is the son of Madam Saradhamani a/p Doraisamy Gopal ('the deceased') who passed away on 8 February 2005 and both the plaintiffs are the administrators of her estate.

[2]Both the first and second defendants are consultant physicians and were practicing at all material times at the Gleneagles Medical Centre ('the hospital') owned by the third defendant.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

[3]The deceased had been consulting the first defendant and/or the second defendant at the hospital of the third defendant for her medical illness or condition as early as 7 January 1980 before her demise. Since 15 December 1992 until before 15 December 2000, the deceased's medical illness or condition at her various consultations with the first or second defendants was diagnosed by first or second defendants to have suffered from either gastroenteritis or food poisoning.

[4]On 15 Deember 2000 when the deceased consulted first defendant with her signs and symptoms at that material time, the first defendant ordered endoscopy, ultrasound of the deceased's abdomen and a barium enema; tests on the deceased's stools and blood were also carried out and the results show that the deceased was suffering from cancer of the colon which had spread to her lymph nodes, liver, lungs and bone at the third stage. Hemicolectomy (surgery) was earned out by surgeon Dato' Dr Peter Vanniasingham to remove the malignant tumour on 20 December 2000. Following that, the deceased had undergone chemotherapy and radiation which continued until she passed away on 8February 2005. On this fact that the deceased was only diagnosed of colon cancer in December 2000 when it could have been diagnosed much earlier by the first and/or the second defendants, the plaintiffs alleged negligence on the part of the first and second defendants basically that they had failed in their duty of care to diagnose the colon cancer of the deceased earlier than 15December 2000 contending that the deceased had been presenting similar symptoms before 15 December 2000 since her visit in 1992 and/or that the first and second defendants had missed or wrongly diagnosed the deceased resulting in the deceased having to undergo pain and suffering. Hence the plaintiffs claimed various damages on the tort of negligence against the defendants. Defence of the first and second defendants is essentially that there were no signs or symptoms of any colon cancer in the deceased prior to her consultation on 15 December 2000. There was no indication of the colon cancer that would have led a medical doctor practising as a consultant physician treating the patient as the first and second defendants to reasonably embark on an investigation for colon cancer. However, on 15 December 2000, the variance of the signs or symptoms of the deceased had warranted such investigation for which first defendant initiated and it led to the ultimate diagnosis of colon cancer. The first and second defendants denied the allegation of negligence. The second defendant in addition pleaded limitation under s 6

[5]The third defendant contended that they are not vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the first and second defendants as the first and second defendants were not the servants or employees or agents of the third defendant's hospital at all material times. Alternatively, they also contended that the first and second defendants had not been negligent in their care and/or management of the deceased.

THE ISSUES

[6]The issues that can be deduced from the facts and evidence in this case are as follows:

(a)whether the failure or omission of the first and second defendants to investigate and diagnose the deceased to have suffered from colon cancer earlier than 15 Deember 2000 constitutes a breach of the duty of care and negligence;

(b)from the conflicting opinions of the experts called by both the plaintiffs and the first and second defendants, which of the opinio