The standard of care in medical negligence requires adherence to accepted medical practices, and failure to perform necessary diagnostic tests constitutes negligence.

Bhupindar Singh Gurcharan Singh Preet J:

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff brought an action for medical negligence against Dr Lee Mun Toong, the defendant, an Eye Consultant/Ophthalmologist and Surgeon who attended and treated the plaintiff at the Ipoh Specialist Hospital (ISH), a member of KPJ Healthcare Berhad Group. The plaintiff pleads that due to the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff had been diagnosed with a penetrating left eye injury with an intraocular foreign body (IOFB) and endophthalmitis. Consequently, the plaintiff had to undergo surgery and suffered loss of perfect vision.

Plaintiff's Case

[2] The plaintiff was working as a mechanic at Syarikat Raja & Co On 6 July 2011, while working, he used a hammer to open a part of an engine compressor, whereby a hard object struck his left eye and it started bleeding. Initially, the plaintiff was brought to a private clinic, but on the doctor's advice, he was taken to ISH. When the plaintiff arrived at ISH, he was taken to the Emergency Department and examined by the defendant.

[3] The plaintiff stated, he informed the defendant that "mata saya terkena suatu serpihan objek keras yang memasuki mata saya, sewaktu saya menghentak sebatang besi dan cuba membuka sebuah enjin". On the same day, the defendant performed a minor surgery on the eyelid to suture the wound.

[4] On 7 July 2011, the defendant conducted another surgery under general anesthesia and the plaintiffs eye was bandaged. The defendant informed the plaintiff that there was no IOFB in the injured eye. The plaintiff was further assured that the eye would heal completely. On the third day (8 July 2011), when the bandage was opened, the plaintiff informed the defendant that his left eye vision was blurry and he was having immense pain in the said eye. After that, the plaintiff was brought to the examination room for a vision test. Accordingly, the defendant said that there was nothing to be worried about. The plaintiff's vision was slightly blurred due to the second surgery and the defendant assured it would improve after two or three days.

[5] The plaintiff was kept in the ward for almost six days, from 6 to 11 July 2011. He complained about the pain in the left eye to the defendant from 9 to 11 July 2011. The plaintiff was to be discharged on 11 July 2011. He once again complained about the excruciating pain he suffered, even though three days had passed after the surgery. Following the complaint of excruciating pain, the defendant then made the decision for the plaintiff to undergo a CT scan. The CT scan result revealed that there was a foreign body embedded inside the injured eye.

[6] The defendant then told the plaintiff to seek treatment in Kuala Lumpur and informed the plaintiff that if the plaintiff did not go to Kuala Lumpur for treatment, he might most probably lose his vision or go blind. The plaintiff mentioned that he did not have the means to seek treatment in Kuala Lumpur as his father had just suffered a stroke. Subsequently, the plaintiff went to Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun (HRPB) for further examination and treatment.

[7] In HRPB, the plaintiff was examined by a specialist, who found that the plaintiffs left eye was infected and that the plaintiff should be referred to Hospital Selayang for treatment and surgery to remove the IOFB because HRPB did not have adequate equipment to carry out the said surgery on the plaintiff. On 12 July 2011, the plaintiff was taken to Hospital Selayang, where a major surgery was performed to remove the IOFB. The plaintiff now suffers from glaucoma and loss of vision.

[8] Thus, in para 39 of the statement of claim, the plaintiff claims that due to the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff suffered the following injuries and losses:

(a) the plaintiff underwent a penetrating left eye injury with an intraocular foreign body and endophthalmitis;

(b) the plaintiff suffered excruciating pain caused by the foreign body, which remained lodged inside the plaintiffs eye for more