Court Awards S$417,000 in Traffic Death Case, Criticises Insurer for “Unreasonable Behaviour”
A Singapore district court has awarded more than S$417,000 in damages to the son of a man who died five years after being struck in a traffic accident. In delivering judgment, Deputy Registrar Kim Bum Soo sharply criticised NTUC Income (now Income Insurance) for its “wholly unreasonable behaviour” and “casually impersonal stonewalling” during the proceedings.
Background
- In June 2019, 78-year-old Ko Wah was knocked down by motorist Samikannu Manickavasakar, suffering severe brain injuries.
- Mr Ko remained bedridden, mentally incapacitated, and dependent on full-time care until his death in October 2024.
- His son, Jonathan Ko, sued on behalf of his father’s estate for medical costs, pain and suffering, and other damages.
Court’s Findings
- NTUC Income (the defendants’ insurer) directed the defence strategy, denying pain and suffering claims by arguing Mr Ko was comatose throughout. The court rejected this, citing medical evidence that Mr Ko had periods of awareness.
- Mr Ko was awarded S$218,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.
- Pre-trial earnings were also factored in, though discounted due to Mr Ko’s age and health conditions.
- The court awarded about S$122,900 for medical expenses, including ambulance fees which NTUC Income had “inexplicably refused” to cover. Some claims related to pre-existing conditions and food costs were disallowed or discounted.
Judge’s Remarks
Deputy Registrar Kim described NTUC Income’s objections as bureaucratic stonewalling in stark contrast to the plaintiff’s diligence. He noted:
- Ambulance costs were “obviously necessary” for a bedridden patient.
- Arguments that milk powder and monitoring equipment were “too expensive” ignored the reality of Mr Ko’s condition.
- Concessions by NTUC Income came too late, after costly proceedings had already been incurred.
My Personal Opinion
The court emphasised that while money cannot truly compensate for the loss of independence and dignity, the award was the fairest possible outcome under the law. I feel that the plaintiffs were seeking reasonable compensation especially since they were victims in a traffic accident and the defendants’ were already deemed responsible for the accident.
