Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – WHEN SILENCE HURTS: COURT SLAMS GOVERNMENT WITH RM2M+ IN AMPUTATION NEGLIGENCE SUIT

1. Summary and Facts

In L/Kpl Naraayanan Nair a/l Subramaniam v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2025] 8 MLJ 593, the Plaintiff, a 24-year-old police officer, filed a medical negligence claim following an injury on 13.3.2018 that led to the amputation of his left arm. The Government of Malaysia (D1) admitted liability on 14.10.2021, and the Plaintiff discontinued his case against other Defendants. The case proceeded to assessment of damages. He sought various forms of compensation including general, aggravated, special, pre-trial, and future damages, along with costs and interest.

2. Legal issues

• What quantum of damages was appropriate for:
    i. Pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life;
    ii. Aggravated damages due to negligent conduct; and
    iii. Special and future damages, including prosthetics, therapy, and mobility needs
• Whether failure to provide medical records aggravated the plaintiff’s suffering?
• Applicability of oral testimony for proving special damages without receipts.

3. Court Findings

• RM150,000 was awarded for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities. The court considered precedents and the plaintiff’s age, continued suffering, and lost career potential.
• RM200,000 was awarded for the additional emotional distress caused by negligent treatment, recognizing the impact on the plaintiff’s dignity and mental health.
• The court when assessing special damages, considered the Plaintiff’s credibility and reasonableness, relied on his oral evidence and awarded RM26,880 for medical expenses, travel, care, vitamins, prosthetics, and car instalments despite lack of complete receipts.
• Furthermore, RM1,982,700 was awarded, including RM1.78 million for a myoelectric prosthesis, future medical needs, and equipment. However, the claim for hiring a maid was rejected due to lack of specific evidence.
• RM70,000 in costs was awarded, 4% interest was set on special damages from date of injury, 8% on general and aggravated damages from writ service date, and 5% on the total judgment sum until full payment.

4. Practical Implications

Aggravated damages in medical negligence cases can be significant where there’s proven emotional and procedural mishandling. Courts accept oral testimony for reasonable special damages even without receipts. Dual prosthesis recognition reflects evolving judicial sensitivity to actual long-term needs of amputees. Healthcare providers may face heightened scrutiny where transparency and timely care are lacking.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

ADMIRALTY IN REM – NO RIGHT TO ARREST: MALAYSIAN COURT BLOCKS ABUSE OF ADMIRALTY LAW OVER U.S. SANCTIONS

In Unicious Energy Pte Ltd v The Owners of the ‘Alpine Mathilde’ [2023] MLJU 2819, the High Court set aside a vessel arrest brought solely to secure arbitration claims, holding it was an abuse of admiralty jurisdiction. The Plaintiff, an OFAC-designated SDN, had no valid claim due to U.S. sanctions, and the Court ruled that arrest for arbitration must strictly comply with section 11(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act 2005. This case reinforces the limits of in rem jurisdiction and the enforceability of sanctions clauses in cross-border charterparty disputes.

Read More »
15 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY – UK SUPREME COURT SHUTS DOWN ‘WHAT IF’ DEFENCE IN FIDUCIARY BREACH: NO PROFIT MEANS NO EXCUSE

In Rukhadze & Ors v Recovery Partners GP Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 329, the UK Supreme Court reaffirmed the uncompromising “no profit” rule for fiduciaries. The Court held that a fiduciary who profits from their position must account for those gains – regardless of good faith, intent, or hypothetical outcomes. The appellants’ argument that they would have earned the profit even without a breach was firmly rejected. The decision emphasises that loyalty, not speculation, is the standard, and reaffirms equity’s strict stance on conflicts of interest.

Read More »
15 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

EMPLOYMENT – CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL VIA TRANSFER: WHEN MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE CROSSES THE LINE

In Saharunzaman bin Barun v Perodua Sales Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 2 MLJ 17, the Court of Appeal reinstated the Industrial Court’s decision that three long-serving employees were constructively dismissed after being ordered to report for duty at distant branches within three days, following their refusal to resign and accept a fixed-term contract with an associated company. The Court found that Perodua’s actions were unreasonable, mala fide, and amounted to a fundamental breach of the employment contract, especially as no valid work permits were arranged for postings in Sabah and Sarawak. The ruling affirms that “reasonableness” clauses in transfer provisions carry enforceable weight and cannot be used as tools for disguised terminations.

Read More »
15 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – WHEN SILENCE HURTS: COURT SLAMS GOVERNMENT WITH RM2M+ IN AMPUTATION NEGLIGENCE SUIT

In L/Kpl Naraayanan Nair a/l Subramaniam v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2025] 8 MLJ 503, the High Court delivered a landmark ruling in a medical negligence suit involving a young police corporal who lost his arm due to delayed and negligent treatment. Citing emotional trauma, denial of timely access to medical records, and ongoing life-altering consequences, the court awarded over RM2 million in damages – including RM200,000 in aggravated damages – this shows the judiciary’s increasing emphasis on dignity, transparency, and rehabilitative justice in personal injury claims.

Read More »
15 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TORT OF DEFAMATION – NO MALICE, NO DEFAMATION: POLITICAL COMMENTARY STANDS PROTECTED

In Lim Guan Eng v Datuk Tan Teik Cheng & Anor [2025] 2 MLJ 791, the Court of Appeal dismissed a defamation claim over a politically charged article alleging conditions tied to a RM4 million school allocation. The Court ruled that the statements – framed as a call for explanation – were not defamatory when read in full context. The defendants successfully relied on the defences of fair comment and reportage, with the Court emphasising that political commentary, if rooted in fact and honestly held, remains protected speech – even during an election campaign. Malice was not proven, and the article’s publication in a neutral “Letters to the Editor” section further insulated the publisher from liability.

Read More »
15 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

ILLEGALITY AND CONTRACT – RM49 MILLION MISTAKE? ADW2 STRUCK DOWN FOR NO CONSIDERATION DIMENSI SDN BHD LEGALLY VALID?

In Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd v Port Kelang Authority [2025] 2 MLJ 238, the Federal Court reaffirmed a core principle of contract law – no consideration, no contract. The Court held that the supplemental agreement (ADW2), which increased interest payable by RM49 million, was void for want of consideration, despite being acted upon. Notably, the Court rejected the “practical benefit” doctrine from Williams v Roffey, clarifying that Malaysian law continues to uphold traditional consideration requirements. Estoppel, too, could not rescue the agreement. This case sends a clear message: contractual variations must be backed by clear and enforceable consideration, or risk being struck down.

Read More »
15 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami