The burden of proof in medical negligence cases lies with the plaintiff, who must demonstrate a breach of duty and causation linking the negligence to claimed damages.

Headnote:(A) Medical Negligence - Wrongful Diagnosis and Treatment - Failure to Establish Breach of Duty - The plaintiff alleged medical negligence and claimed for damages against the defendants due to wrongful diagnosis of ovarian cancer and unnecessary treatments, including surgery and chemotherapy. The patient failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate claims of negligence or demonstrate a breach of duty of care by the medical professionals involved. The court highlighted the burden of proof resting on the plaintiff and confirmed that the defendants' treatment rendered was appropriate and reasonable. (Paras 1, 24, 62, 66)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff underwent treatment for ovarian concerns at the hospital led by the 2nd defendant, where alleged negligence included wrongful diagnosis and unnecessary surgical procedures resulting in complications. There were multiple admissions for examinations and treatments from 2000 to 2006.

Findings of Court:
The plaintiff could not prove negligence nor demonstrate breach of duty by the defendants, with the court finding that the diagnosis and treatments provided were well-founded.

Issues: Key issues revolved around whether the defendants owed a duty of care, whether they breached this duty, and whether the treatment was appropriate given the plaintiff's medical condition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to support the claim that defendants acted negligently and asserted that the burden of proving negligence lay with the plaintiff. The court emphasized that without expert testimony, the plaintiff's claims lacked merit.

Result: Suit dismissed with costs.

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

Su Geok Yiam J:

Plaintiff's Suit

[1] In this suit filed by way of a Writ of Summons ("Writ") and a Statement of Claim ("SOC") which was subsequently amended, the plaintiff sued the defendants for general, aggravated, exemplary and special damages for medical negligence and/or neglect of professional duty in the diagnosis and treatment given to the plaintiff.

[2] The plaintiff has alleged wrongful diagnosis of ovarian cancer by the 2^nd defendant, the unnecessary removal of her left ovary and parts of her right ovary by the 2^nd defendant, and the unnecessary chemotherapy treatment which she had to undergo after the surgical procedures carried out by the 2^nd defendant to remove her left ovary and parts of her right ovary.

[3] The surgical procedures were carried out by the 2^nd defendant who was assisted by the 1^st defendant's medical officers and nurses.

[4] The chemotherapy treatment was prescribed by the 2^nd defendant and administered to the plaintiff by the 1^st defendant's officers, nurses and staff.

[5] The plaintiff initially sued only the 1^st defendant which is the hospital where she received the diagnosis, the surgical procedures and the chemotherapy treatment.

[6] However, on 2 March 2010 ie not long after she changed solicitors and appointed Messrs Vinod Kamalanathan & Associates to replace Messrs Cedric Miranda & Co to represent her, the plaintiff's Writ and SOC were amended to join the 2^nd defendant as an additional party to the suit.

[7] The alleged particulars of negligence are set out in paragraphs (a) to (g) of the plaintiff's Amended SOC at pp 66 - 68 of the Bundle of Pleadings.

[8] As against the 1^st defendant, the plaintiff has pleaded the following particulars of negligence:

(1) Failing to reasonably administer, supervise and attend to the plaintiff according to her medical condition from time to time: para c p 59 Bundle A

(2) Failing to ensure reasonable exercise of care of supervision at all times while examining the plaintiff's abdomen during follow-ups at the hospital: para g p 60 Bundle A

(3) Failing to exercise professional duty and ethics, or use modern and professional medical expertise and skill, and in breach of duty of care as the 1^st defendant's medical officers and nurses failed to show due concern, care and sensitivity towards the Plaintiff: para 1 p 62 Bundle A

(4) Causing inexperienced and/or incompetent medical officers and nurses who have no sense of duty of care to receive, record and report the plaintiff's information and condition: para q p 63 Bundle A

(5) Failing to provide qualified medical supervisor to monitor the plaintiff's condition at all material times: para r p 63 Bundle A

(6) Administrating the chemotherapy prescribed by the 2^nd defendant which caused violent mood swings, depression, severe discomfort and pain: para 9 p 56 Bundle A

(7) Failing to take any step to ensure that the chemotherapy administered to the plaintiff would not cause the plaintiff to suffer severe emotions, discomfort, pain and depression: para k p 61 Bundle A

[9] As against the 2^nd defendant, the plaintiff has pleaded the following particulars of negligence in Malay in paras 23 (a) to 23 (g):

Butir-Butir Kecuaian Defendan Kedua

(a) Gagal untuk memastikan tanpa sebarang keraguan yang munasabah samada Plaintif benar-benar mempunyai suatu ketumbuh yang mengandungi cecair (cyst) iaitu sista ovary (ovarian cyst) yang dikategorikan oleh Defendan Kedua sebagai "malignant tumor" sebelum melakukan pembedahan.

(b) Gagal untuk menggunakan kemahiran dan kepakaran perubatan yang sewajarnya ataupun memberi rawatan yang setimpal dengan keadaan plaintif semasa ujian pemeriksaan dan perubatan diagnostic awal dan kajian (preliminary diagnostic medical tests and observation) dijalankan ke atas sebaik sahaja Plaintif dimasukkan ke hospital Defendan Pertama pada tahun 2000 samada Plaintif benar-benar mempunyai suatu ketumbuh yang mengandungi cecair (cyst) iaitu sista ovary (ovarian cyst) yang dikat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document