Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

TORT — NEGLIGENCE — MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE — A MISSED LIFELINE: COURT HOLDS MEDICAL TEAM LIABLE FOR BRAIN DAMAGE IN HIGH-RISK PREGNANCY CASE

Summary and Facts

The plaintiff was admitted to a hospital owned by the 17th defendant at 33 weeks of gestation, diagnosed with Placenta Praevia Type III, classifying her as a high-risk obstetric patient. After undergoing an emergency caesarean section, the plaintiff collapsed, was resuscitated, and then transferred to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Following further care, the plaintiff suffered severe and irreversible brain damage, leading to permanent physical and mental disabilities.

Legal Issues

  • Did the defendants commit negligence?
  • Did the defendants breach their duty of care?
  • Did the breach of duty by the defendants cause the injuries and damages to the plaintiff?
  • Is the plaintiff entitled to special damages, pre-trial damages, damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, future general damages, and costs?

Court Findings

  • The standard of care expected of the defendants was aligned with the Federal Court decision in Zulhasnimar bt Hasan Basri & Anor v Dr Kuppu Velumani P & Ors.
  • Proper documentation of diagnosis, treatment, and medical plans in a patient’s records was essential, a fact admitted by one of the doctors during cross-examination.
  • Discrepancies were found between the estimated blood loss and the amount of blood transfused.
  • The court noted incomplete medical records for the period between 1 pm and the time the plaintiff was transferred to the ICU.
  • Witness testimony revealed that the danger stemmed from an underestimation of blood loss, leading to insufficient and delayed blood transfusions.
  • The court found that the defendants, including doctors and nurses, failed to respond to warning signs, resulting in oxygen deprivation and subsequent brain damage. The multidisciplinary team was collectively held liable for failing to monitor the plaintiff’s condition in the ICU properly.

Reference Cases

  • Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118
  • Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 (HC)
  • Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] 3 WLR 1151
  • Foo Fio Na v Dr Soo Fook Mun & Anor [2007] 1 MLJ 593
  • Zulhasnimar bt Hasan Basri & Anor v Dr Kuppu Velumani P & Ors [2017] 5 MLJ 438; [2017] 5 MLRA 399; [2017] 8 CLJ 605
  • Yusnita bt Johari (suing through her husband and litigation representative Khairil Faiz bin Rahamat) v Dr Jerilee Mariam Khong & Ors [2023] 9 MLJ 629
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »
31 October ,2024 No Comments

CHARTERPARTY AGREEMENTS – CHARTERER’S GUIDE TO FOULING CLAUSES

In maritime charterparty agreements, fouling clauses outline who is responsible for the costs and time associated with hull cleaning when marine organisms accumulate due to specific operating conditions. These clauses are crucial for clarifying liabilities, particularly when charterers operate in warm, bio-rich waters or leave vessels idle, as fouling can significantly impact performance and fuel efficiency. Understanding the scope of a fouling clause helps charterers navigate potential costs and ensure clear terms for post-redelivery responsibilities, as highlighted in cases like The “Globe Danae” [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 309.

Read More »
31 October ,2024 No Comments

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »
31 October ,2024 No Comments

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »
31 October ,2024 No Comments

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »
31 October ,2024 No Comments

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
31 October ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us