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

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us