The court assessed damages in a medical negligence case, emphasizing the need for adequate proof and just compensation for injuries sustained, including future care needs.

JUDGMENT

Khairil Azmi Mohamad Hasbie JC:

Introduction

[1] This is the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendants and each of them for negligence and breach of statutory, contractual and/or other duties. On the 29th of January 2020, liability was admitted by the 1st, 4th and 6th Defendants and the claim was discontinued against the other Defendants. The trial proceeded only on the issue of damages.

Cause Papers

[2] The relevant cause papers pertaining to this suit are as follows-

[3] The Plaintiff had called three (3) witnesses, namely:

(i) PW1: Professor Dr Lydia Abdul Latif

(ii) PW2: Noorasmawati Binti Abu Othman

(iii) PW3: Rahim bin Ali

[4] The Defendants had called one (1) witness, namely:

(i) DW1: Dr Norzalilah binti Abdul Majid

Brief Facts

[5] The facts are as gathered from the submissions of parties. I respectfully adopt them subject to some modifications.

[6] This is a medical negligence case concerning the Plaintiff, a 40-year-old housewife at the time of the incident.

[7] The 2nd to 7th Defendants were doctors whilst the 8th to 18th Defendants were nurses employed in a government hospital known as "Hospital Selayang" which is owned and managed by the 1st Defendant.

[8] The Plaintiff was admitted to Hospital Selayang on the 12th of December 2015 for a catheter-related blood stream infection. On the 13th of December 2015, the Plaintiff was treated for fast atrial fibrillation with Noradrenaline and Amiodarone which were given intravenously through her right hand.

[9] On the 14th of December 2015, the first signs of arterial compromise in the Plaintiff's right hand had been detected when she developed signs and symptoms of right-hand thrombophlebitis at the site of cannulation on the dorsum of her right hand.

[10] About two days later, radiological investigations were undertaken and the Defendants had thereafter purportedly concluded that the Plaintiff's right hand was not salvageable.

[11] On the 21st of December 2015, the Plaintiff underwent trans-humeral amputation of the right limb at Hospital Kuala Lumpur.

[12] The Plaintiff has suffered catastrophic injuries and is now dependant on her family members, especially her husband, a lorry driver, for some of her activities of daily living and also for undertaking her household responsibilities.

[13] Thereafter, the Plaintiff initiated a legal suit against the Defendants and claims general damages, aggravated damages, special damages, interests and costs.

Legal Principles

[14] In dealing with the issue of quantum of damages, I shall refer to some established legal principles. The standard of proof as regards to future 5 damages is stated in the case of Schrump et al v. Koot et al (1977) 82 DLR (3d) 553 where it was held that:-

"In this area of the law relating to the assessment of damages for physical injury, one must appreciate that though it may be necessary for a Plaintiff to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the tortious act or omission was the effective cause of the harm suffered, it is not necessary for him to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that future loss or damage will occur, but only that there is a reasonable chance of such loss or damage occurring...

... Speculative and fanciful possibilities unsupported by expert or other cogent evidence can be removed from the consideration of the trier of fact and should be ignored, whereas substantial possibilities based on such expert or cogent evidence must be considered in the assessment of damages for personal injuries in civil litigation. This principle applies regardless of the percentage of possibility, as long as it is a substantial one, and regardless of whether the possibility is favourable or unfavourable. Thus, future contingencies which are less than probable are regarded as factors to be considered, provided they are shown to be substantial and not speculative: they may tend to increase or reduce the award in a proper case."

[15] The Federal Court in the case of Inas Faiqah bt Mohd Helmi (an infant suing through he