A Singapore district court has awarded more than S$417,000 in damages to the son of a man who died after suffering severe injuries in a 2019 traffic accident.
In the judgment, dated 4 August 2025 and released publicly in late September, Deputy Registrar Kim Bum Soo criticised NTUC Income, the defendants’ insurer, for what he described as “wholly unreasonable behaviour” in resisting legitimate claims.
Kim noted that NTUC Income engaged in “unfounded objections” and adopted “casually impersonal stonewalling” during proceedings, in stark contrast to the family’s sustained and earnest care for the injured man.
NTUC Income — now known as Income Insurance following its corporatisation in 2022 — was expressly criticised for its litigation approach.
Background of the accident
On 21 June 2019, 78-year-old Ko Wah was struck in a road accident by defendant Samikannu Manickavasakar.
Ko suffered severe brain injuries, requiring multiple surgeries. He became bedridden and permanently mentally incapacitated, showing symptoms consistent with advanced dementia.
For the next five years, he was entirely dependent on caregivers, including his son, Jonathan Ko Wei Ze, his daughter, and a domestic helper. The family provided full-time assistance with daily needs.
Ko passed away in October 2024, before the court concluded the hearing on damages.
His son, Jonathan, pursued claims on behalf of his father’s estate for pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of earnings, and other costs.
Jonathan Ko was represented by counsel Tan Jee Ming and Derek Tan of Quahe Woo & Palmer.
The defendants, Samikannu and a related company, were represented by Richard Tan, Calvin Tan and Annabelle Au Jia En of Tan Chin Hoe & Co.
However, Kim highlighted that NTUC Income, as the insurer responsible for covering any judgment against the defendants, was effectively directing the defence.
“The unsaid understanding was that this was essentially an insurance claim packaged in legal proceedings and adjudicated by a judicial officer,” he observed.
NTUC Income told lawyers to fully contest damages for pain and loss of amenities
One of the most contentious issues was the insurer’s refusal to recognise pain and suffering as a legitimate claim.
NTUC Income instructed defence lawyers to “completely deny” compensation on this basis, asserting that Ko had been comatose throughout and therefore incapable of experiencing pain.
Kim rejected this position as unreasonable.
He cited medical evidence showing that Ko had periods of alertness, during which he responded to simple instructions.
Moreover, he emphasised that under established legal principles, damages for loss of amenities are still due even when a victim cannot feel pain.
Ultimately, Kim awarded S$218,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities to late Ko.
He noted that such compensation rarely feels adequate but must reflect “a fair, and rational process”.
He added: “A bed-bound man unable to enjoy the company of his filial children in his final years, or a graceful departure, arguably experiences a loss that hard-hearted money cannot capture.”
Ko’s loss of earnings
The court also addressed Ko’s loss of earnings.
At the time of the accident, he was working as a security officer, earning S$1,600 per month in 2019 and S$1,702.08 in 2020.
Kim assessed that Ko would likely have worked for another 1.5 years, given Singapore’s average male lifespan of 81.
However, he applied a 50 per cent discount, citing Ko’s existing health conditions, including heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes, as well as uncertainties about his continued employment.
Medical expenses and ambulance costs
Medical costs were another major area of dispute.
NTUC Income refused to pay for ambulance expenses, which Kim described as “inexplicable”.
“I cannot understand why NTUC Income would be willing to pay for hospital expenses, but not transportation to the hospital,” he said.
“There is nothing unreasonable about calling an ambulance to transport a bedridden man for his hospital visits. It boggled the mind why NTUC Income would have taken such an unyielding stance.”
Kim allowed all ambulance-related claims, emphasising that these were “perfectly legitimate” and supported by receipts.
He granted approximately S$122,900 in medical expenses but rejected about S$65,950 in claims relating to pre-existing conditions.
While Jonathan Ko did not provide receipts for expenses incurred between November 2023 and October 2024, Kim accepted that the absence was due to the father’s unexpected death and relaxed standard evidentiary requirements.
Dispute over nutrition and care items
NTUC Income also contested the costs of items such as milk powder, medical monitoring devices, and transport, arguing that cheaper alternatives should have been used.
The insurer even suggested that Ko would have incurred food expenses regardless of the accident.
Kim dismissed these objections, stressing that Ko required specialised nutrition because he could no longer consume solid food.
“Before the accident, Ko was not bedridden,” he wrote.
“He needed an ambulance because he was otherwise bedridden. He needed regular medical monitoring because he was bedridden. And he had to take milk powder because he could no longer consume solid food.”
From June 2019 to October 2023, Ko’s milk powder cost amounted to S$16,500.
Kim applied a 60 per cent discount, approximating what Ko might have spent on food otherwise, awarding about S$6,600.
Judicial recognition of family efforts
Kim commended Jonathan Ko and his family for their meticulous record-keeping and dedication in caring for the late Ko.
“The bundle of documents tendered is impressive. It tells the tale of a family methodically collating receipts over a four-year period, from multiple merchants, through multiple hospital visits, and concerning multiple caregiving needs,” he said.
He contrasted this with the insurer’s conduct, which he said caused unnecessary hardship.
“The earnestness of the beleaguered plaintiff offered heartbreaking contrast,” he remarked.
Lawyers’ professionalism noted
While critical of NTUC Income’s instructions, Kim emphasised that he did not hold defence counsel responsible.
He praised their advocacy as “candid, well-organised, and fully in line with their duties to the court”.
The judgment also acknowledged the efforts of Jonathan Ko’s legal team in presenting the extensive documentation.
Court says NTUC Income’s agreement on expenses came only after avoidable litigation
Kim remarked that while the insurer eventually agreed to cover ambulance and MediShield Life-related expenses, this concession came “too late”.
By then, extensive legal proceedings had already taken place, negating the value of such concessions.
“The value of a reasonable concession primarily lies in its ability to avert a costly legal proceeding. That cost had already been incurred in money and more,” he wrote.
In total, the court awarded over S$417,000 to Jonathan Ko on behalf of his father’s estate. This included:
- S$218,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities
- S$122,900 for medical expenses
- Additional amounts for loss of earnings and other costs
The post Court rebukes NTUC Income for ‘stonewalling’ & unreasonable defence, awards S$417k in traffic death case appeared first on The Online Citizen.
